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