Gold dealer licence renewal must be assessed on merits; pending appeals alone should not usually justify refusal.

Renewal of a gold dealer's licence under Section 27(6)(b) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is an enabling discretion that must be exercised on the merits of the dealer's case. Rule 3(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 does not require rejection in every case of contravention, and non-renewal carries consequences comparable to cancellation, including disabling the dealer from business and triggering Section 53 obligations. Where the adjudication orders relied on are still under appeal, renewal should not normally be refused merely on that basis, since the underlying proceedings remain sub judice. The text notes that suspension, shorter renewal periods, or action for serious or repeated violations remain available alternatives.

---

---

Issues: Whether renewal of a gold dealer's licence could be refused on the basis of adjudication orders that were under appeal and had not attained finality, and whether such refusal was warranted on the facts under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969.

Analysis: The renewal power under Section 27(6)(b) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is an enabling power and requires consideration of the dealer's case on the merits. Rule 3(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 must also be read with the Act, but it does not compel rejection in every case of contravention. The consequence of non-renewal is as serious as cancellation, since both disable the dealer from carrying on business and attract the consequential obligations under Section 53. The order relied on by the licensing authority was based only on two adjudication proceedings, both of which were under appeal. The scheme of the Act, the administrative instructions referred to in the record, and the need to avoid disproportionate consequences indicated that renewal should not normally be refused while the very adjudication forming the basis of action remains sub judice. Alternative remedies such as suspension, shorter renewal periods, or action in cases of serious or repeated violations remained available to the department.

Conclusion: Renewal could not be refused merely because the supporting adjudication orders were under appeal; the refusal of renewal was not justified on these facts, and the assessee succeeded.

---