https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167388 Section 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 was upheld against a challenge of excessive delegation because the Act's object, policy and overall scheme supplied sufficient guidance for the Administrator's discretion to grant or refuse permission for money-lending or allied business in licensed premises. The restriction was treated as limited and aimed at preventing circumvention of the Act, while Section 5(1) required the Administrator to act consistently with the Act's policy and purposes. The availability of revision to the Central Government further indicated that the power was not arbitrary or unfettered, and the earlier invalidation of Section 27(6) was distinguished because its vague language was absent here. en-us Thu, 21 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Dec 2014 10:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167388 Section 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 was upheld against a challenge of excessive delegation because the Act's object, policy and overall scheme supplied sufficient guidance for the Administrator's discretion to grant or refuse permission for money-lending or allied business in licensed premises. The restriction was treated as limited and aimed at preventing circumvention of the Act, while Section 5(1) required the Administrator to act consistently with the Act's policy and purposes. The availability of revision to the Central Government further indicated that the power was not arbitrary or unfettered, and the earlier invalidation of Section 27(6) was distinguished because its vague language was absent here. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167388