Rikhab Chand Jain vs Jawaharlal Nehru University
2003 Latest Caselaw 660 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the quashing of the letter dated 23.04.2003 issued by the Deputy Registrar (Estate) of the respondent University. He has also prayed for the removal of the locks and seal put on the shop, which according to him, were rented out to him by the respondent University.

2. The petitioner was granted a license by the Deputy Commissioner, Food & Supplies on 26.03.1997 for running a Fair Price Shop at Shop No. 2, JNU Campus, New Delhi. The license was granted to the petitioner for running the said Fair Price Shop specifically at the said premises. The terms and conditions of the license are set out at pages 22-26 of the paper book. Insofar as this petition is concerned, only the first condition is of some importance. By this condition, the license was not transferable and Fair Price Shop holder could not change the composition of the firm in any way or give a General Power of Attorney to any person for running the Fair Price Shop without prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner, Food & Supplies, Delhi in writing. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that a Power of Attorney has been executed by the petitioner in favor of one Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Aggarwal whereby the entire business of running the Fair Price Shop has been entrusted and handed over to him. He has further granted the power to his Attorney in respect of all transactions of the Fair Price Shop in his name or his nominee for all times to come unless the same is transferred or entrusted by the said Attorney in the name of anybody else. This, according to Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, is a complete abdication of his entire rights as a licensee under the original license granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Food and Supplies.

3. This, however, is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is with regard to the possession in respect of Shop No. 2 at JNU Campus, New Delhi. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this shop had been leased out to the petitioner by the respondent and in support thereof he has placed on record several rent receipts which are at pages 28-30 of the paper book. It is contended in the petition itself that initially the rental was Rs 500/- per month besides water and electricity charges which was enhanced from time to time and ultimately w.e.f. January 2003, the rent had been enhanced to Rs 4,400/- per month. At page 30 of the paper book, the petitioner has annexed a photocopy of the rent receipt issued on 23.04.2003, the very date on which the impugned letter was issued, which shows receipt of rent in respect of the Fair Price Shop Along with electricity charges from the petitioner up to May 2003. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondent that although the receipt shows the name of the petitioner, in point of fact, the payments have been made not even by Kamlesh Kumar Aggarwal, but somebody else who has been transferred the license for running the Fair Price Shop by the petitioner.

4. The impugned letter dated 23.04.2003 has been issued by the Deputy Registrar (Estate) of the respondent and is addressed to the "licensee Ration Shop No. 2, Shopping Complex, JNU, New Delhi". In this letter, it is indicated that the licensee was running the Ration Shop located in the Shopping Centre of the University "without approval of the competent authority". It is further indicated that the Campus Development Committee at its meeting held on 24.01.2003 has decided to request the licensee to hand over the aforesaid shop latest by 30.04.2003, failing which necessary action would be initiated against the licensee and that the shop would be double locked if he failed to do so. In pursuance of this letter, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was locked out of the shop on 07.05.2003 and the respondent has put its lock on the said shop. The petitioner's goods are also lying inside the shop. Prima facie, there appears to be several lacunae in the arguments advanced by both the parties. The impugned letter dated 23.04.2003 does not indicate as to whose approval was required. It is also clear that the licencing authority, insofar as the Fair Price Shop was concerned was the Department of Food and Supplies and they have not cancelled the license nor have they taken any action against the petitioner. On the other hand, there are various questions of fact as well as law which are disputed and which arise in the present petition. Some of these questions are:-

i) whether the petitioner is a licensee in respect of the said Shop No. 2?

ii) whether the petitioner occupied the said Shop No. 2 under a lease?

iii) whether the petitioner has transferred his license or lease, as the case may be, to some third party?

iv) whether the petitioner could at all do so?

There are also questions with regard to who, in point of fact, is running the Fair Price Shop and as to who in fact is in possession of the same. Prima facie, it appears that these questions, being disputed questions of fact, could not be entertained by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and there is also the question of whether at all a writ would lie in a dispute of this nature when the petitioner has a remedy under the ordinary law before a competent court.

5. Be that as it may, in view of the questions that arise and particularly the pointed allegation on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner that atleast some hearing should have been granted to him before any action was taken in respect of the said Shop No. 2, Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has fairly submitted that his client would be willing to give a post-decisional hearing in this matter so that it cannot later on be alleged that any principle of natural justice has not been followed. It is, therefore, directed that the Registrar of the respondent shall give a post-decisional hearing to the petitioner on 18.07.2003 at 3.00 p.m. at the Registrar's Office, JNU Campus, New Delhi. The petitioner and/or his advocate shall attend the hearing with all the relevant papers and documents. The contents of the present writ petition as well as the counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit will be treated as part of the record for the said hearing.

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court after the decision taken in accordance with law.

dusty to both the parties.