Shiv Kumar Soni Vs. Collector, Central Excise and ors.

Shiv Kumar Soni vs Collector, Central Excise and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 06, 1983

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/504180

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/504180
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: G.P. Singh, C.J. and; Faizanuddin, J.
Decided On: Jan 06, 1983
Case Number: M.P. 196/1980
Subject: Excise;Commercial
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Gold control - Writs under Constitution--Rejection of petitioner's application for license on ground that turnover of two dealer in the place had low turnover which was declining--Rejection was for valid reason--High Court--Cannot interfere under Article 226--Constitution of India, Article 226--Gold (Control) Act (4...

Key legal issue: Excise;Commercial
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shiv Kumar Soni

Respondent

Collector, Central Excise and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1987(11)ECC109

Excerpt

gold control - writs under constitution--rejection of petitioner's application for license on ground that turnover of two dealer in the place had low turnover which was declining--rejection was for valid reason--high court--cannot interfere under article 226--constitution of india, article 226--gold (control) act (45 of 1968) section 27--gold control (licensing of dealers) rules, 1969, rule 2. - indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him - 2. section 27(6) of the act provides that no application for the issue of a licence to commence or carry on business as a dealer shall be granted unless the administrator, having regard to such matters as may be prescribed in this behalf and after making such inquiry in respect of those matters as he may think fit, is satisfied that the licence should be issued......being estimated on the basis of the turnover of the licensed dealers, existing therein, for a period of three years preceding the year in which such application for the issue of licence has been made and such turnover shall be determined on the basis of the accounts and returns submitted under the law for the time being in force in relation to gold:3. the petitioner's application was for getting a dealership licence to carry on business in the town of chandameta. the appellate order of the collector goes to show that the petitioner's application was rejected having regard to the fact that there were already two dealers in chandameta and that a perusal of the turnover of the preceding three years of these dealers revealed that the same was low and had been on the decline. the ground on which the petitioner's application was dismissed cannot be said to be irrelevant. the petitioner's application was properly considered and rejected on relevant grounds which are mentioned in rule 2. we cannot, therefore, interfere in this matter under article 226.4. learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the demand for gold ornaments has now considerably increased in chandameta and, therefore, the petitioner should be granted the licence. there is no material before us in support of this argument. in case, however, the demand for gold ornaments has really increased and there has been a change in circumstances, it would be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application for licence which would be considered on merits.5. the petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. the security amount be refunded to the petitioner.

Full Judgment

ORDER

G.P. Singh, C.J.

1. The petitioner applied for grant of a licence under Section 27 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The petitioner's application was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bhopal, by order dated 29th September, 1978. The petitioner went up in appeal and the appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Central Excise, Indore, in October 1979. The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the aforesaid two orders.

2. Section 27(6) of the Act provides that no application for the issue of a licence to commence or carry on business as a dealer shall be granted unless the Administrator, having regard to such matters as may be prescribed in this behalf and after making such inquiry in respect of those matters as he may think fit, is satisfied that the licence should be issued. Rules relating to Section 27 were made by notification No. 2706 dated 3rd July, 1969. These rules are known as the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. Rule 2 of these rules specifies the matters which the Administrator must keep in his mind while disposing of an application for a licence. Clause (f) of Rule 2, which is relevant, reads as follows:

(f) the need to increase the number of licensed dealers in the city or town in which the dealer intends to carry on business or where the applicant intends to carry on business in a village, the need to increase the number of licensed dealer in the district within which such village is situated, having regard to--

(i) the number of licensed dealers existing in such city, town or district, as the case may be; and

(ii) the demand for ornaments which is likely to arise in such city, town or district, such demand being estimated on the basis of the turnover of the licensed dealers, existing therein, for a period of three years preceding the year in which such application for the issue of licence has been made and such turnover shall be determined on the basis of the accounts and returns submitted under the law for the time being in force in relation to gold:

3. The petitioner's application was for getting a dealership licence to carry on business in the town of Chandameta. The appellate order of the Collector goes to show that the petitioner's application was rejected having regard to the fact that there were already two dealers in Chandameta and that a perusal of the turnover of the preceding three years of these dealers revealed that the same was low and had been on the decline. The ground on which the petitioner's application was dismissed cannot be said to be irrelevant. The petitioner's application was properly considered and rejected on relevant grounds which are mentioned in Rule 2. We cannot, therefore, interfere in this matter under Article 226.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the demand for gold ornaments has now considerably increased in Chandameta and, therefore, the petitioner should be granted the licence. There is no material before us in support of this argument. In case, however, the demand for gold ornaments has really increased and there has been a change in circumstances, it would be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application for licence which would be considered on merits.

5. The petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1983 Same Parties Shiv Kumar Soni vs Collector, Central Excise and ors. Same Subject Excise;Commercial Same Judge G.P. Singh, C.J. and; Faizanuddin, J.

Excise;Commercial