9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Validity of impugned order cancelling gold dealer's license, jurisdiction of Tribunal to grant stay, challenge to constitutionality of Section 50(1A) of Gold Control Act
The judgment by the Bombay High Court, delivered by Justice S.C. Pratap, pertains to a petition challenging the cancellation of a gold dealer's license by the Collector of Customs. The petitioners argued that the impugned order was unsustainable and should be set aside without exhausting remedies before the Tribunal. However, the Court held that all challenges to the order could be raised in appeal before the Tribunal, which would decide on the merits. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's concern regarding the Tribunal's power to grant a stay on the impugned order, noting that the Tribunal may lack such authority under the Gold Control Act. Consequently, the Court decided to stay the impugned order until the appeal's disposal and for a specified period thereafter. Furthermore, the petitioner sought to challenge the constitutionality of Section 50(1A) of the Gold Control Act, alleging violations of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court allowed the petitioners the liberty to amend their petition to include this challenge but deferred a decision on this matter until after the Tribunal's ruling on the appeal. The Court ordered that the impugned order would remain stayed until the appeal's final disposal and for sixty days thereafter. Additionally, if the gold dealer's license expired during the appeal, it should be renewed by the concerned authority until the appeal's conclusion. The Court left the challenge to Section 50(1A) of the Gold Control Act open for future determination. Lastly, the petitioners were granted the liberty to take further legal action if the Tribunal's decision went against them. The Court disposed of the petition accordingly, outlining the orders to be followed in the given circumstances.
|
