Natural justice and statutory criteria in gold dealer licensing require fair disclosure, impartiality, and consideration of all relevant factors.

A licensing authority deciding a gold dealer's licence application must act fairly, disclose the material relied on and avoid pre-determined reasoning. The rejection was found unsustainable where new grounds, turnover data and area-wise figures were introduced without fair notice, indicating breach of natural justice and bias. On the merits, the Gold Control regime required consideration of all relevant statutory factors, including need, experience, business viability and the broader right to carry on trade, and not turnover alone. The need criterion was only one factor, not an absolute bar to grant. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the rejection of the application for a gold dealer's licence was vitiated by breach of natural justice and bias; (ii) whether, on the merits, the licensing authority had properly applied the statutory criteria under the Gold Control regime, particularly the need criterion and the applicant's experience.

Issue (i): whether the rejection of the application for a gold dealer's licence was vitiated by breach of natural justice and bias.

Analysis: The order of rejection rested on material and grounds that were not fairly put to the applicant in the show cause notice. The authority introduced a new case in the adjudication, relied on turnover figures and area-wise data not disclosed to the applicant, and displayed a pre-determined approach in justifying the departmental stand. Such conduct showed absence of impartial adjudication and denial of a fair opportunity.

Conclusion: The rejection order was vitiated by breach of natural justice and bias and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether, on the merits, the licensing authority had properly applied the statutory criteria under the Gold Control regime, particularly the need criterion and the applicant's experience.

Analysis: Under Section 27(6)(A) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and Rule 2 of the Gold (Control) (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, the authority was required to consider all relevant matters and not turnover alone. The need to increase licences was only one factor and not an absolute bar against grant of licence. The applicant's experience in the trade, the availability of business per dealer, the viability of a new entrant, and the constitutional protection to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restriction under Article 19(6), were all relevant. The turnover figures relied on by the department did not justify refusal, especially when the average turnover per dealer exceeded the governmental norm and fresh licences had been issued even in a year of decline.

Conclusion: The licensing decision on merits was unsustainable because the authority failed to apply the statutory criteria in a fair and lawful manner.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the authorities below were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with directions for expeditious disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: While considering an application for a gold dealer's licence, the licensing authority must apply all relevant statutory factors fairly and impartially; turnover decline by itself is not a conclusive ground to refuse the licence, and a decision founded on undisclosed material or pre-determined reasoning is invalid.

---