S. RANGANATHAN, J. ( 1 ) WE had issued notice to the respondents to show cause why the writ petition should not be admitted. We are of the opinion that as the question which is involved in this petition is a very short one," it would be expedient to dispose of the writ petition itself. We, therefore, issue Rule D. B. and having heard both the counsel we proceed to dispose of the writ petition on merits. ( 2 ) THE writ petition is directed against an order dated 11-7-1986 under which the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh directed the petitioners to stop carrying on business as dealers in gold. This direction was issued in pursuance of an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal dated 30th May, 1986. The writ petition, therefore, reallyinvolved the question of correctness of the above decision of the Tribunal. ( 3 ) THE petitioner M/s. Talwar Diamonds is a firm consisting of six partners. Three of the partners of the firm are already partners in a firm known as, M/s. Talwar Jewellers which holds a licence as a dealer under the Gold Control Act. The firm, M/s. Talwar Diamonds also applied for a licence in the prescribed form. But this application was rejected by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, who held that a licence could not be granted in view of R. 2 (dd) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Collector of Central Excise and this appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector the Excise Department preferred an appeal to the Tribunal which allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Deputy Collector. Hence the present writ petition. ( 4 ) THE short ground on which the application of the petitioner firm for a licence has been refused is that under R. 2 (dd) the petitioner is not entitled to such a licence because three of its partners are partners in M/s. Talwar Jewellers, a firm which has already obtained a licence under the Act. ( 4 ) THE short ground on which the application of the petitioner firm for a licence has been refused is that under R. 2 (dd) the petitioner is not entitled to such a licence because three of its partners are partners in M/s. Talwar Jewellers, a firm which has already obtained a licence under the Act. Rule 2 (dd) requires the Department, while dealing with an application for Licence to consider "whether the applicant is a person who does not hold a v alid licence to carry on business as a licensed dealer in his name or is a person who is not a partner of a firm which holds such licence. " ( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the applicant is a firm, namely, M/s. Talwar Diamonds. The petitioner firm does not hold a valid licence to carry on business as a dealer in gold. The firm cannot also be said to be a partner of a firm which holds such a licence. It is, therefore, contended that R. 2 (dd) cannot justify the. refusal of the application filed by the petitioner. On the other hand, the contention of the department is that firm does not have a juristic personality and that when a licence is granted in the name of firm, it is really a licence granted to all the partners of the firm jointly. It is submitted that since three of the partners of M/s. Talwar Jewellers thus hold a licence in their names jointly along with three others and since these persons are partners in the petitioner firm the prohibition contained in R. 2 (dd) will come into operation. ( 6 ) WE are unable to accept the contention urged on behalf of the department. A perusal of the Gold Control Act clearly shows that a licence under the Act is to be granted to a dealer . dealer is defined in S. 2 (h), as including a Hindu Undivided Family, a local authority, company, society registered under. the Societies Registration Act, a co-operative society, a club, firm or other association of persons. It is, therefore, clear that, whether a firm can be treated as a legal person or not in general law, for the purposes of Gold Control Act a firm is a legal entity. the Societies Registration Act, a co-operative society, a club, firm or other association of persons. It is, therefore, clear that, whether a firm can be treated as a legal person or not in general law, for the purposes of Gold Control Act a firm is a legal entity. In fact it is common ground that licences are applied for by the firms and are granted to firms. Indeed in the case of M/s. Talwar Jewellers licence has been granted in the name of the firm itself. If the present objection has not been raised, the petitioner firm would have also been granted a licence. The Act clearly envisages a licence in the name of a firm. This is also clear from the provisions of S. 52 of the Act. This section provides that, when there is a change in the constitution of a partnership the licence granted to a firm as a dealer will become invalid unless the change has been approved by the Administrator. This section makes it clear that the licence is granted in the name of the firm itself but that the change of the constitution of a partnership should be approved by the Administrator if the licence in the name of the firm is to continue. Even the terms of R. 2 (dd) on which reliance is placed by the respondents clearly show that the stand taken by the department is untenable. The last part of the rule which we have extracted earlier postulates a firm holding a licence. It is, therefore, clear in the context of the Gold Control Act, that in the case of firm, the "person" who holds a licence is the firm itself. As under the Income-tax Act, so under this Act a firm is also a "person" capable of holding a licence. The terms of R. 2 (dd) do not, therefore, apply where the applicant firm is not the holder of another gold dealer s licence, or perhaps a case where all the partners of the applicant firm are partners in an other firm holding a valid licence. Our conclusion is also fortified by the form prescribed for application for a licence under the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968 where one. of the columns requires an applicant to name the partners of the firm. Our conclusion is also fortified by the form prescribed for application for a licence under the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968 where one. of the columns requires an applicant to name the partners of the firm. ( 7 ) WE are, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner is not disqualified by the terms of R. 2 (dd) for being granted a licence. We, therefore, quash the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 30th May, 1986 as well as the impugned notice dated 11-7-1986. We are informed that, though the Tribunal directed the cancellation of the licence, it was not cancelled in view of the pendency of the writ petition. There is, therefore, no necessity to order restoration of the licence to the petitioner who as we have already held, is entitled to the licence. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.