Gold dealers licence refusal cannot rest on turnover figures or public interest grounds without lawful government direction.

An applicant satisfied proviso (f) to Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules by applying within 60 days of leaving employment and showing more than five years' experience with licensed dealers; continuous service with one dealer was not required. Turnover figures of existing licensed dealers, standing alone, were insufficient to justify refusal of a fresh gold dealers licence, especially where the figures were inconsistent and no minimum turnover threshold had been prescribed. Officers exercising delegated powers under Section 27 of the Gold Control Act could not refuse a licence on public interest grounds without a direction from the Central Government under Section 27(6A). The rejection of the licence application was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant satisfied proviso (f) to Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules by making the application within the prescribed time after leaving employment and by possessing the requisite experience. (ii) Whether turnover figures of licensed dealers could, by themselves, justify refusal of a fresh gold dealers licence. (iii) Whether officers exercising delegated powers under Section 27 of the Gold Control Act could refuse a licence on public interest grounds in the absence of a direction by the Central Government under Section 27(6A).

Issue (i): Whether the applicant satisfied proviso (f) to Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules by making the application within the prescribed time after leaving employment and by possessing the requisite experience.

Analysis: The application was found to have been made within 60 days of leaving the relevant employment. The proviso did not expressly require that the employment be continuous for five years with one dealer alone, and the applicant's employment with more than one licensed dealer for over five years established the necessary experience in dealing with ornaments.

Conclusion: The applicant satisfied the requirements of proviso (f) to Rule 2(f).

Issue (ii): Whether turnover figures of licensed dealers could, by themselves, justify refusal of a fresh gold dealers licence.

Analysis: The turnover material did not show a reliable decline warranting rejection. The figures relied upon were inconsistent, the average turnover per dealer had not fallen, and no minimum turnover for grant of a fresh licence had been prescribed. Turnover alone was held to be insufficient as a basis for refusal.

Conclusion: Refusal could not be sustained merely on the basis of turnover figures.

Issue (iii): Whether officers exercising delegated powers under Section 27 of the Gold Control Act could refuse a licence on public interest grounds in the absence of a direction by the Central Government under Section 27(6A).

Analysis: The power to issue licences had been delegated, but the power to restrict or reduce the number of licensed dealers vested in the Central Government. In the absence of any direction under Section 27(6A), the delegated authority could not refuse a licence on that ground. A cryptic order unsupported by cogent reasons was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refusal was beyond the scope of the delegated authority and was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the licence application was set aside and the applicant was held entitled to grant of a gold dealers licence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute delegates the power to grant licences but reserves policy-based restriction of licence numbers to the Central Government, the delegated authority cannot refuse a licence on public-interest or turnover grounds unless supported by a lawful governmental direction and relevant reasons.

---