9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to refusal of gold dealer's license based on lack of experience. Analysis: The petitioners, partners of a jewelry box manufacturing concern, applied for a gold dealer's license in 1970. The application was rejected by the Administrator citing lack of experience in dealing with gold ornaments, as required by Rule 2(b) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The petitioners claimed experience from their previous association with a jewelry firm. After a series of appeals and revisions, the Special Secretary to the Government allowed the revision application, emphasizing the petitioner's experience and remanding the case to the Collector for further consideration. On remand, the Collector again rejected the application solely on the ground of lack of experience, disregarding the directive of the revisional authority to consider other requirements of Rule 2. The Court held that the Collector erred by failing to abide by the revisional authority's decision and reconsidering the issue of experience, which had already been settled. The Collector's decision was deemed unsustainable and in violation of the remand order. The Court directed the Collector to review the application within four weeks, considering that the petitioners had fulfilled the experience requirement under Rule 2(b. The Collector was instructed not to revisit the experience issue but to focus on other conditions stipulated in Rule 2. The Court set aside the Collector's order and ordered the respondents to bear the petitioners' costs due to the Collector's unjustifiable decision.
|
