Natural justice and Rule 2 scrutiny govern gold dealer licence refusals; unnotified allegations cannot support rejection.

An administrative refusal of a gold dealer's licence could not be sustained on allegations not disclosed in the show cause notice, because the applicant was denied a proper opportunity to meet the material relied upon. Rule 2 of the Gold (Control) (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 also required the licensing authority to consider all relevant statutory criteria, including the applicant's pleaded past experience in dealing with ornaments. Failure to examine both grounds in the application made the decision unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication of the licence application.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the gold dealer's licence application could rest on discrepancies and allegations not contained in the show cause notice. (ii) Whether the licensing authority was required to consider all the grounds stated in the application, including past experience, under Rule 2 of the Gold (Control) (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the gold dealer's licence application could rest on discrepancies and allegations not contained in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The basis adopted by the authorities below included findings that the GS-13 register contained bogus or smuggled entries, but those allegations were not put to the applicant in the show cause notice. The applicant was therefore not afforded an opportunity to meet the material relied upon against him. An adjudication cannot travel beyond the scope of the notice and cannot rest on unnotified allegations.

Conclusion: The rejection on that basis was unsustainable and could not be maintained against the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the licensing authority was required to consider all the grounds stated in the application, including past experience, under Rule 2 of the Gold (Control) (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969.

Analysis: Rule 2 requires the licensing authority to have regard to the matters enumerated in its clauses, including the applicant's experience in dealing with, making, manufacturing, preparing, repairing or polishing ornaments. The authorities below failed to consider the applicant's pleaded past experience and also did not examine the application on both stated grounds. Although the application might not satisfy the separate condition in proviso (b) to Rule 2(f), that did not justify ignoring the experience-based ground altogether. Fresh consideration was therefore necessary.

Conclusion: The application had to be reconsidered afresh with due regard to all relevant clauses of Rule 2 and both grounds raised by the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication on the licence application.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative decision affecting a licence application cannot be sustained on grounds not disclosed in the show cause notice, and the authority must consider all statutorily relevant criteria and all grounds advanced by the applicant before taking a fresh decision.

---