HASMUKHLAL AMRITLAL MEHTA Vs. N B SONAVENE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated March 2, 1978 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, refusing to grant the application for gold dealers licence by holding that the petitioners have no experience of dealing in gold.

(2.) The petitioners are partners of a concern know as M/s. Royal Plastic Box Manufacturing Co. and are doing the business of manufacturing of jewellery boxes as 11, Third Agiary Lane, Zaveri Bazar, Bombay 3. The petitioners applied for a licence to deal in gold in the prescribed form or November 30, 1970. Along with the application, the petitioners deposited the requisite amount as provided by the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 2 provides that on receipt of the application for the issue of a licence, the Administrator shall consider the matter set out in that Rule. The two main requisites which are required to be considered by the Administrator are that the person applying for licence had an experience with regard to the dealing in or making, manufacturing, preparing, repairing or polishing of ornaments and the premises where the applicant intends to carry on the business as a licenced dealer is suitable and secure for carrying on of such business. There are some other conditions to which no reference is required to be made.

(3.) The petitioner No. 1 claimed that he was working as a partner in a concern known as M/s. Kum Kum Jewellers from the years 1957 to 1966 and has a large experience of dealing in gold ornaments. Petitioner No. 1 claims to have retired from the concern M/s. Kum Kum Jewellers and thereafter carried on business of preparation of jewellery boxes till the date of filing the application for licence. The application was considered by the Administration and was rejected by an order dated August 10, 1971 on the ground that the petitioners have failed to establish that they have experience of dealing in gold ornaments, and therefore, the requirement of Rule 2(b) of the Rules was not complied with. The order of the Administrator was confirmed in appeal by the Gold Control Administrator, New Delhi on April 2, 1972. The petitioner carried a revision application before the Government of India, Department of Revenue and Banking, and the revision application was allowed by the Special Secretary to the Government of India by an order dated June 25, 1977. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner No. 1 had an experience while working with M/s. Kum Kum Jewellers and the authorities below were in error in rejecting the application on the ground of lack of experience. On the strength of that finding the revisional authority remanded the proceedings to the Collector, Bombay for a decision as to whether other conditions prescribed under Rule 2 were satisfied.