GOVINDA BHAT, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS matter arises under the Gold Control Act 1968 and the rules made thereunder. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was a partner of a firm carrying on business under the name and style 'jewels Garden'. He left the said partnership on 5-5-1966. On 13-5-1968, the petitioner made an application for a dealer's licence. That application was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, and the petitioner was intimated of that fact by the Superintendent of Central Excise" (Respondent 1) on 8-8-1968. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent which was rejected on the ground that it was belated. The matter was taken up in revision before the Government of India (Respondent 4) who, by an order dated 5-10-1970 dismissed the same, on two grounds viz. , (1) that the petitioner was penalised for contravention of the Gold Control Rules as a result of seizure of primary gold from his possession on 13-6-1969, and (2) that the demand for ornaments in the town for which the licence had been applied for and the turnover of the licenced gold dealers already existing 'therein, would not justify the need to increase the number of dealers in the town. Aggrieved by the said decision of the fourth respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief under Arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the orders of the respondents on several grounds. But this writ petition can be disposed of on the short ground that rules ot natural justice have not been complied with and that the order of the Collector of Central Excise rejecting the petitioner's application is not a speaknig order. ( 4 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the Central Government placed before us 'the original file of the Collector where the order was made. It is seen therefrom that the petitioner's application was rejected without assigning any reasons. It contains only one word, viz, 'rejected'. Under the Act, an aggrieved party has a right of appeal and then a revision to the Government of India. When an order is appealable, it is necessary that it should contain the reasons for rejecting the application. It is seen therefrom that the petitioner's application was rejected without assigning any reasons. It contains only one word, viz, 'rejected'. Under the Act, an aggrieved party has a right of appeal and then a revision to the Government of India. When an order is appealable, it is necessary that it should contain the reasons for rejecting the application. Although the final order made in revision by the fourth respondent gives the reasons, the said grounds have not been put to the petitioner so as to enable him to rebut the same. Rules of natural justice require that if ah application, in the opinion of the Collector has to be rejected, then, an opportunity must be afforded to the applicant to rebut any of the grounds on which the application is proposed to be rejected. ( 5 ) RULE 2 of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, prescribes the matters to which regard shall be had before issuing a licence. One of the matters to be taken into consideration is 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 dealers in the district within which such village is situated having regard to the number of licensed dealers existing in such city, town or district as the case may be, and the demand for ornaments which is likely to arise in such city, town or district. ( 6 ) THE relevant data, namely, the number of licenced dealers existing in the city for which the licence is applied for and the estimated demand have to be gathered and then put to the petitioner in order to enable him to rebut the case of the Department that the petitioner is not entitled to a licence. An opportunity not having been afforded to the petitioner, there is a clear non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. There fore, the order made by the Government of India (Respondent 4) dated 5-10-1970 and the order made by the third respondent on 5-12-1969 are liable to be quashed. An opportunity not having been afforded to the petitioner, there is a clear non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. There fore, the order made by the Government of India (Respondent 4) dated 5-10-1970 and the order made by the third respondent on 5-12-1969 are liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY they are hereby quashed and we issue a direction to the collector (second respondent) to consider the application of the petitioner for a dealer's license as if it were an application for the year 1973-74 and dispose of the same expeditiously within three months from this date. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the Senior Counsel for the Central government forthwith. No costs. --- *** --- .