Gold dealer licence refusal cannot rest on one factor alone; authority must consider all prescribed matters and reconsider afresh.

A gold dealer's licence could not be rejected merely because the applicant already held a licence elsewhere, since the statutory scheme required the licensing authority to consider all prescribed matters and form a proper satisfaction after enquiry. The existence of another licence was only one relevant factor, not a mandatory ground for refusal. Because the authorities failed to assess the need for a licence at the locality concerned and relied on an incomplete basis, the refusal was treated as arbitrary. The appellate authority also failed to apply its mind properly, so the application was required to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of the application for a gold dealer's licence was justified under the governing statutory scheme, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the licensing authority.

Analysis: The statutory provision required the Administrator to be satisfied, after making such enquiry as he thought fit and having regard to the prescribed matters, that the licence should be issued. The Rules did not mandate rejection merely because the applicant already held a licence elsewhere; that circumstance was only one factor to be considered. The authorities relied on a limited clause and did not examine the other relevant considerations. No proper survey of the need for a licence at the place concerned was made, and the finding that the locality did not require a gold dealer's licence was treated as arbitrary, especially in view of a later grant of licence to another party from the same locality. The appellate authority also failed to apply its mind properly.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application was not sustained, and the matter was required to be reconsidered afresh by the Additional Collector in accordance with law.

---