Delhi High Court
Sonu K. Oil Depot vs The Financial Commissioner And ... on 7 August, 2002
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner assails the order dated
5.4.2002, passed by the Financial Commissioner,
dismissing the appeal against the cancellation of the
license and forfeiture of security deposit in respect
of oil depot, run by him. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that petitioner's whole livelihood
depends upon the said depot and he had been running the
same for the last 21 years. It is submitted that
penalty for cancellation is rather harsh and wholly
dis-proportionate to the charges levied by the
respondents.
2. I have gone through the impugned order.
The following eight charges are noticed in the order
dated 4.1.2002 of the Assistant Commissioner:-
1. Shop was found closed during working
hours.
2. Stock Board was not filled at the time of visit.
3. Complaint book was not available at the
time of visit.
4. Signatures of card holders not obtained on
some of the issued cash memos.
5. Depot holder has not signed on some of the
issued cash memos.
6. Irregular opening of shop.
7. Less measurement of K.oil issued to card
holders.
8. Denial of 90.5 Ltrs. of K.Oil by card
holders.
3. On a perusal of the orders passed by the
Commissioner (Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs) as
well as the Financial Commissioner in appeal and the
second appeal, I find that each of the plea raised by
the petitioner in respect of these charges has been
adequately and cogently dealt with. The orders record
sound reason for reaching the conclusions, which they
have arrived at. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that affidavits produced by the petitioner
have been ignored. The impugned order records that
verification of the said statements made by the
persons, whose affidavits, were filed, have shown that
either the persons have not stuck to the statements
made or in some cases their premises were found
locked. The affidavits are stereotyped.
4. It is not the province of this Court in
exercise of writ jurisdiction to reappraise the
evidence or findings of fact arrived at by the
authorities below. Learned counsel submits that in
several cases, similar violation by depot owners have
not invited the cancellation of the license and they
have been awarded lesser punishment or suspension of
license for sometime or forfeiture of the security
deposit. I am afraid this would not be sufficient for
this Court to intervene in exercise of writ
jurisdiction, especially when it cannot be said that
penalty imposed is so dis-proportionate so as to shock
the conscience of the Court. Counsel for the
petitioner submits that petitioner may be considered
for any other allotment in future. Let the petitioner
make a representation to the respondents in this
regard, who would consider the same as per their
policy and rules, if any.
Writ petition is dismissed with the above
observations.
