Authorised consultant's concession before Tribunal held binding; recorded plea of guilt created no referable question of law.

An authorised consultant appearing for parties before the Tribunal may make submissions, including a plea of guilt, in the same manner as an advocate in a quasi-judicial proceeding, and such a statement can bind the applicant when recorded in open court and relied on with other supporting material. The text further states that allowing a party to repudiate an authorised concession after an adverse result would undermine finality in adjudication. On that basis, the matter was treated as raising no referable question of law, and the reference applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a concession or plea of guilty made by an authorised consultant before the Tribunal could be acted upon and treated as binding on the applicant, and whether any question of law arose for reference on that basis.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the consultant, who had been authorised to appear for the applicants, was entitled to make submissions on their behalf in the same manner as an advocate in a quasi-judicial proceeding. The recorded plea of guilt regarding contravention under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was made in open court and was acted upon by the Tribunal together with other supporting material. The order further held that a contrary view would undermine the finality of proceedings by permitting parties to disown authorised submissions after an adverse result. On that reasoning, the matter did not give rise to a question of law.

Conclusion: The consultant's concession was held to be valid and binding, and no referable question of law was found. The reference applications were therefore rejected.

---