Judgment

TULZAPURKAR, J.:- In these 11 appeals only that part of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is assailed by the Union of India where the challenge to the validity of S. 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 has succeeded. The challenge to the other provisions of the Act at the instance of persons .engaged in gold trade, i.e., manufacturers, shroffs and dealers in gold was rejected by the High Court.

2. Section 28 of the Act runs thus :

"28 Money lending business not to be carried on in licensed premises. - No licensed dealer shall unless authorised by the Administrator so to do, -

(a) carry on business as a money-lender or banker on the security of any article, or ornament, or both,

(b) permit any other person to carry on money-lending, banking or any other business,

in the same premises in which he carried on business as such dealer."

3. The High Court has struck down the aforesaid provision only on the ground that it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power inasmuch as no criteria or guidelines have been provided by reference to which the power conferred on the Administrator to refuse permission or grant permission should be exercised and that the section confers an arbitrary, uncanalised and unfettered power upon the Administrator with the result that the licensed dealer is at his mercy while seeking permission to carry on money-lending or banking business on the security of any article, ornament or both in the same premises in which he carried on business as such dealer. The High Courts reasoning in this behalf is to be found in its judgment at page 87 of the paper book and it runs thus :

"The Administrator as is evident from this provision is given unlimited authority or power to refuse permission or to grant permission. No rules have been framed prescribing the conditions or circumtances under which the Administrator could refuse permission or grant permission. A dealer is at the mercy of the Administrator and is helpless against the arbitrary exercise of the power by the Administrator when he chooses to negative the request. It is clear that Section 28 confers an arbitrary and uncanalised power without any criteria for guiding the discretion of the Administrator. Further, the section does not provide nor is any rule brought to our notice which enjoins upon the Administrator to give a hearing to dealer who seeks permission under this Section and give reasons in case he decides to refuse the permission."

Incidentally the High Court also proceeded to draw analogy from the reasoning adopted by this, Court in its decision in Harakchand Ratanchand Banthias case reported in (1970) 1 SCR 479: while declaring sec. 27(6) of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Amending Act No. 26 of 1969, constitutionally invalid on the ground of conferal of a very wide and vague power upon the Administrator to grant or renew a licence, to a dealer.

4. For the reasons which we shall indicate presently it is impossible to sustain the reasoning given by the High Court for striking down sec. 28 in the manner done and in our view the analogy, drawn by the High Court from the reasoning adopted by this Court while dealing with unamended see. 27(6) of the Act is clearly inapplicable.

5. It is true that no express rule prescribing the conditions or circumstances under which the permission can be granted or refused has been framed nor any particular guideline has been expressly indicated in sec. 28 by reference 1015 to which the power conferred upon him thereunder could be exercised by the Administrator, but that is not decisive of the matter. It cannot be disputed that sec. 28 is part and parcel of the entire scheme of Gold Control as envisaged by the Act and the object of the enactment and the scheme affords sufficient guidance to the Administrator in the matter of exercising his discretion under that section. The main object in putting the Act on the Statute-Book as indicated by its long title is "to provide,