Delhi High Court
Laxmi Narain Store vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2003
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has essentially sought the quashing of the order dated 6.12.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Food & Supplies), Government of NCT, Delhi in Appeal No. 164/2000, being an appeal under Clause 6(6) of Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1981 filed by the petitioner. That appeal was filed against the order dated 23.10.2000 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (New Delhi) refusing to consider the petitoner's application for authorisation to operate a mobile van under woman/general category in the notified area of Gole Market/Chanakya Puri, New Delhi in Circle 2. It appears that a vacancy of FPS (Mobile Van) under the aforesaid category for the areas of Gole Market and Chanakya Puri was notified on 3.8.2000. Four persons applied including the petitioner and respondent No. 4. After field visits and necessary verifications, a preliminary scrutiny of applications was done by the Screening Committee consisting of Assistant Commissioner (New Delhi), FSO, Circle 2. The petitioner's application was rejected for the reasons as indicated below by the Screening Committee:-
"The proposed business premises is a temporary structure having the roof made of tin sheets which is not water proof. The walls of the structure are made up of bricks, and the floor, as well as the walls, are full of moisture which is not suitable place to store the PDS sugar in the odd weather. The measurement of the premises is not as per the prescribed specifications i.e. Length: 9.55 Mtrs. & Height: 2.89 Mtrs. And the space also falls in unauthorised colony. As per the Column No. 7 of the application "Whether the business premises is in legal possession of the applicant", the applicant has written "No". In column No. 17 also "Whether the applicant/firm is financial capable of running the business under authorisation applied for without the aid and assistance by any third party", the applicant has written "No". It seems that some third party is involved in this allotment."
2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Food and Supplies) which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 6.12.2000. The Commissioner (Food and Supplies) has considered the grievance made by the petitioner as indicated in the order itself and in particular the submission of the petitioner that she had wrongly written "No" against Sr. Nos. 7 and 17 of the application form. Sr. No. 7 was a question to the following effect:-
"Whether the business premises is in legal possession of the applicant."
To this the applicant had written "No"i n the application form. Similarly, the petitioner had entered "No" against Sr. No. 17 which read-"whether the applicant/firm is financially capable of running the business under authorisation applied for without the aid and assistance by any third party." It is apparent that when an applicant answers "No" to such questions the respondents cannot be faulted on their rejecting the application. These factors, which, in any event; are matters of fact, have also been considered by the Commissioner (Food and Supplies). In fact, the Commissioner (Food and Supplies) after going through the application form and the enclosed documents as well as the case records forwarded by the Licensing Authority came to the conclusion that there was no force in the contention of the petitioner as the business premises were also unsuitable for the purposes of the license. The business premises were not waterproof. The roof was broken at several places and the light was entering through these openings. It is further recorded that nothing has been pointed out to discredit this observation found during the inspection. It was also found that the floors and walls were dump with moisture and it was categorically held that such a business premises was not fit for storing specified articles like wheat, sugar etc. On these grounds also the petitioner's application was liable to be rejected.
3. This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. No infirmity or jurisdictional error has been pointed out in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Food and Supplies) dated 6.12.2000.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
