1989 (2) TMI 197 - Commissioner - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of applications for Gold Dealers Licence based on Rule 2 (f) of Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969.
- Consideration of applications for transfer of business location.
- Legal interpretation of relevant rules and circulars.
- Justification for granting Gold Dealers Licence in Bombay.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to four appeals against the orders of the Deputy Collector (Preventive) Gold Control, Bombay, regarding the rejection of applications for Gold Dealers Licence based on Rule 2 (f) of Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The appellants, holding Gold Dealers License in Amritsar and Navasari, sought to shift their business to Bombay due to various reasons, including disturbed conditions in Punjab. The Deputy Collector rejected their requests citing Rule 2 (f), which prioritizes new entrants from local residents for Gold Dealers Licence issuance. The appellants argued that the Gold Control Department had granted licences to other dealers in Bombay disregarding Rule 2 (f) and cited instances where licences were issued to existing dealers in different locations. The judgment highlighted the legal position that Rule 2 criteria are not mandatory conditions for licence grants, providing discretion to the licensing authority.

The judgment also referenced a Kerala High Court case where the denial of a licence was deemed unjustified when issued to another applicant. The judgment emphasized the appellants' eligibility for Gold Dealers Licence and the government's clarification on the rule's interpretation, stating that all criteria need not be fully satisfied for licence issuance. The Deputy Collector's failure to consider the cases in light of Rule 2 (f) and humanitarian grounds was criticized. The judgment stressed the need to increase the number of licensed Gold Dealers in Bombay, considering the rise in turnover and dealer numbers. It highlighted the constitutional right to carry on business subject to reasonable restrictions, with no legal impediment cited for rejecting the applications based on location transfer requests.

In ruling against the Deputy Collector's orders, the judgment directed the consideration of Gold Dealers Licence issuance to the appellants within 15 days, subject to surrendering their licences at previous locations. The judgment underscored the justification for granting licences in Bombay based on population growth and existing dealer turnover. It concluded that the rejection of applications based on Rule 2 (f) was legally unsustainable, emphasizing the appellants' right to conduct business in different locations and the discretionary nature of licensing criteria interpretation.