Licence renewal can be refused for breach of any qualifying condition, and a fair notice need not quote every rule clause.

Renewal of a gold dealer's licence could be refused where any prescribed renewal condition under Rule 3 was not satisfied; the authority was not required to assess all conditions cumulatively before declining renewal. A show cause notice was valid because it fairly disclosed the statutory basis under Section 27 and the alleged contravention of Rule 3(f), even without reproducing the rule in exact terms. No separate natural justice breach arose where the dealer had time to reply, was warned of ex parte decision, filed no response, and sought no hearing. Pending appeals did not prevent action based on existing adverse adjudication orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of renewal of the gold dealers licence was vitiated because the show cause notice did not specifically call upon the appellant to answer a charge under Rule 3(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. (ii) Whether, for renewal of a licence, the licensing authority was required to examine all the conditions in Rule 3 or could refuse renewal if any one prescribed condition was not satisfied. (iii) Whether the refusal of renewal was invalid for want of further opportunity and for alleged violation of natural justice, including the plea that the order was premature because earlier adjudication appeals were pending.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of renewal of the gold dealers licence was vitiated because the show cause notice did not specifically call upon the appellant to answer a charge under Rule 3(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969.

Analysis: The notice expressly alleged contravention of Rule 3(f) and referred to Section 27 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 as the statutory basis for rejection of renewal. The governing provision is Section 27, which authorises rejection of renewal after reasonable opportunity and satisfaction as to the prescribed grounds. In that setting, it was sufficient that the notice indicated the statutory basis and the alleged contravention; the omission to separately frame the notice in the language of Rule 3(f) did not prejudice the appellant.

Conclusion: The challenge failed; the show cause notice and the order were valid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether, for renewal of a licence, the licensing authority was required to examine all the conditions in Rule 3 or could refuse renewal if any one prescribed condition was not satisfied.

Analysis: Rule 2 concerns grant of licence, where the authority must have regard to the listed factors, whereas Rule 3 governs renewal and makes the dealer qualified for renewal only if the prescribed conditions are fulfilled. The text of Rule 3 shows that non-fulfilment of any qualifying condition dis-entitles renewal; it does not require the authority to weigh all conditions cumulatively before refusing renewal. The authority was therefore competent to refuse renewal on satisfaction that one or more renewal conditions were breached.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to insist on consideration of all conditions in the manner suggested; refusal of renewal on the stated ground was lawful.

Issue (iii): Whether the refusal of renewal was invalid for want of further opportunity and for alleged violation of natural justice, including the plea that the order was premature because earlier adjudication appeals were pending.

Analysis: The appellant was given ample time to respond to the notice, was reminded again to file a reply, and was warned that the matter would be decided ex parte if no reply was filed. No reply was submitted and no request for personal hearing was made. The record also showed adverse adjudication orders already in existence when the renewal decision was taken, and those orders formed a legitimate basis for action under Section 27. Pending or later-dismissed appeals did not deprive the authority of jurisdiction to act on the then-existing adjudications, and the order was not premature.

Conclusion: There was no denial of natural justice and no invalidity on the ground of prematurity.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to renew the gold dealers licence was upheld and the appeal was rejected in full.

Ratio Decidendi: For renewal of a statutory licence, the authority may refuse renewal upon satisfaction that any prescribed qualifying condition is breached, and a show cause notice is valid if it fairly discloses the statutory basis and the alleged contravention, even if it does not recite every rule clause in express terms.

---