Experience requirement for gold dealers licence must be assessed on evidence where no fixed qualifying period is prescribed.

Rule 2(b) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 requires experience in dealing with or making, manufacturing, repairing, preparing or polishing ornaments, but it does not prescribe a fixed qualifying period or other restrictive standard. On that basis, the experience requirement was treated as assessable on the evidence available rather than as a rigid mandatory bar. The applicant's goldsmith certificate, affidavit stating eight years' employment with a licensed gold dealer, and the absence of contrary material supported satisfaction of the requirement. The licensing authority was not justified in rejecting the claim without evidence to disprove it, and the direction to grant the gold dealers licence was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 2(b) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 was mandatory in nature and whether the respondent had sufficient experience to qualify for a gold dealers licence.

Analysis: Rule 2(b) requires experience in dealing with or making, manufacturing, repairing, preparing or polishing ornaments, but it does not prescribe any quantified period of experience or other restrictive classification. In the absence of such a qualifying standard, the requirement was treated as not mandatory in the sense suggested by the appellant. The respondent's goldsmith certificate, his affidavit stating eight years' employment with a licensed gold dealer, and the absence of contrary material sufficient to discredit that statement supported the finding of experience. The licensing authority did not adduce evidence to falsify the affidavit or make further inquiry to disprove the respondent's claim.

Conclusion: The respondent satisfied the experience requirement and the order directing grant of the gold dealers licence was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the direction in favour of the licence applicant was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a licensing rule requires experience but does not prescribe a definite qualifying period or mandatory standard, the authority must assess the applicant's experience on the available evidence and cannot reject the claim without material to disprove it.

---