Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The fact that the appellant's application for grant of a licence under the general category was negatived on grounds of decrease in the turnover for the preceding three years in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Rules, is not disputed and is indeed admitted before us. The only plea that was canvassed before us was for consideration of the appellant's case under Rule 2(f) proviso (e) and (f) of the Rules. In our view the plea of the learned counsel is misconceived. While Rule 2(f) proviso (e) speaks about the grant of a licence to an erstwhile partner of a licensed firm for a period of not less than five years on condition that after leaving the firm he takes out an application for the grant of a licence within 60 days of his leaving; Rule 2(f) proviso (f) speaks about a person employed in a shop of a licensed dealer and is found by the proper authorities to possess experience in dealing on in making, manufacturing, preparing or repairing of ornaments for a period of not less than five years, if an application is made by the person within a period of sixty days of his leaving the employment. In the present case Shri Prabhakara Sastry, the learned counsel admits before us to a specific query that the appellant is still continuing as a partner in a licensed firm and in such a situation Rule 2(f) proviso (e) will not come into operation at all. The said Rule will come into operation only after the appellant leaves the partnership firm and takes out an application within a period of 60 days subject to fulfilling the other requirements envisaged thereunder. When a person admittedly is continuing as a partner in a licensed firm, we are at a loss to understand as to how in the same breath he can putforth a plea that he was an employee in a licensed firm for a period of 5 years, moreso has left the employment so as to seek the grant of a licence under the special category in terms of Rule 2(f) proviso (f) of the Rules. On the admitted facts the appellant is not covered either by Rule 2(f) proviso (e) or (f) referred to supra. Therefore, the rejection of the appellant's application for the grant of a gold dealer's licence is well founded in law. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.