https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74166 Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 was treated as conferring discretion on the licensing authority, not as imposing rigid mandatory conditions. On the facts described, existing licence holders sought relocation to Greater Bombay by surrendering licences at Amritsar and Navsari, and the surrounding circumstances, including market conditions and prior similar relief, supported sympathetic consideration. A mechanical refusal based on the rule was therefore not justified. The rejection was unsustainable in law and the applications were required to be reconsidered for grant of Bombay licences subject to surrender of the existing licences. en-us Fri, 10 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:34:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74166 Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 was treated as conferring discretion on the licensing authority, not as imposing rigid mandatory conditions. On the facts described, existing licence holders sought relocation to Greater Bombay by surrendering licences at Amritsar and Navsari, and the surrounding circumstances, including market conditions and prior similar relief, supported sympathetic consideration. A mechanical refusal based on the rule was therefore not justified. The rejection was unsustainable in law and the applications were required to be reconsidered for grant of Bombay licences subject to surrender of the existing licences. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74166