Licence cancellation for a grave offence was unsustainable where the authorities had already adopted a lenient view.

Cancellation of a gold dealer's licence under Section 50(1A) of the Gold (Control) Act is a severe penalty and is justified only where the offence is grave. Where the revisional authority has already reduced the monetary consequences and the dealer has also been acquitted by the Sessions Court, the surrounding circumstances show that the matter is not of sufficient seriousness. In such a setting, sustaining the extreme step of licence cancellation would be inconsistent with the lenient approach already adopted by the authorities, so the cancellation was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether cancellation of the gold dealers' licence under Section 50(1A) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was justified in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: Cancellation of licence under Section 50(1A) is a high penalty and is warranted only where the offence is of a grave nature. The earlier basis for the order had changed materially because the revisional authority had reduced the monetary consequences and the appellants had also been acquitted by the Sessions Court. In the circumstances, the departmental approach had itself shown leniency, and it would be inconsistent to sustain the extreme step of cancelling the licence.

Conclusion: Cancellation of the licence was not warranted and the order of cancellation was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A licence cancellation penalty under Section 50(1A) should be imposed only for a grave offence, and it cannot be sustained where the surrounding circumstances show that the matter is not of such seriousness and the authorities themselves have adopted a lenient view.

---