Satish Chandra vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 1268 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     W.P. (C) No.1789/2007


SATISH CHANDRA                         ....     PETITIONER
         Through       : Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate


                              Versus


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE (LICENSING)                ....     RESPONDENTS
           Through : Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI

      1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
         the Judgment?      Yes
      2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?    Yes
      3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
      Yes

                           07.08.2008

G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition is, inter alia, directed against the

order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing),

Delhi, dated 27.9.2006, cancelling the trade license of the

petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not

applied for the benefit of unexpired portion of term of the

license within the stipulated deadline and in compliance

with the prescribed procedure.

2. Facts, as set out in the present petition, may first be

noticed:

I.In the year 1984, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ―the MCD‖), granted the petitioner's late father, namely, Sh. Lakhpat Rai, a license for running his guest house under the name and style of ―Krishna Guest House‖, situated at 1881, Gali Ghantewalan, Haveli Jugal Kishore, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006.

II.On 24.7.1989, Sh. Lakhpat Rai was further granted a license by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), Delhi (hereinafter, ―the Licensing Authority‖), for running his guest house under the Regulations for Keeping Places of Public Entertainment in the Union Territory of Delhi.

III.Both the licenses - the one granted by the MCD as well as the one by the Licensing Authority - are stated to have been renewed annually during the lifetime of Sh. Lakhpat Rai.

IV.Sh. Lakhpat Rai expired on 29.2.2004.

V.It is stated that although Sh. Lakhpat Rai expired in the year 2004, the MCD, for reasons best known to it, kept renewing the license granted by it to the deceased uptill the year 2006. As regards the Licensing Authority, it is stated that the Licensing Authority had stopped renewing the license granted by it to Sh. Lakhpat Rai after the year 1996, which state of affairs continued even after the latter's demise.

VI.It is further stated that as per the Will of the late Sh. Lakhpat Rai, the guest house as well as his rights and interests in respect thereof were to be inherited by

his four sons. However, after death of Sh. Lakhpat Rai, disputes arose between his four sons with regard to the running of his guest house. As a consequence thereof, a complaint dated 26.7.2006 is stated to have been made by Sh. Ashok Kumar, one of the sons of the late Sh. Lakhpat Rai, alleging that the guest house was being run without a proper license.

VII.The petitioner vide application dated 2.9.2006 requested the Licensing Authority to transfer or substitute his name individually or jointly with the names of his brothers, namely, Sh. Anil Kumar and Sh. Krishan Kumar, to the exclusion of Sh. Ashok Kumar who had divested himself of the guest house business.

VIII.However, in response thereto, the Licensing Authority vide order dated 27.9.2006 cancelled the license of the petitioner.

IX.Against the order dated 27.9.2006, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Lt. Governor, Delhi, who, vide order dated 17.1.2007, dismissed the appeal.

X.Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present seeking relief in the following terms:

―(a) A Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case for perusal;

(b) issue a writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside the orders dated 27.9.2006 (Annexure P-11) and

17.1.2007 (Annexure P-14) passed by Respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unjust, and in violation of the rules, regulations and policy and principles of equity, natural justice and good conscience;

(c) issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to restore and renew the License in respect of the demised premises/Guest House in favour of the petitioner singly or in favour of the petitioner and his brothers jointly.

(d) pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3. The order dated 27.9.2006 as well as the order dated

17.1.2007, passed by the Licensing Authority and the Lt.

Governor respectively, are both under challenge in the

present petition. The primary assault, however, is directed

against the order dated 27.9.2006 of the Licensing

Authority, filed at page 65 of the present petition, and

reproduced below:

―OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LICENSING) First Floor, Police Station, Defence Colony, First Floor, New Delhi No. ... DCP/LIC(H) dt. New Delhi 27.9.2006

To S/Shri Ashok Kumar, Krishan (Kumar), (Through M/ Cycle Rider) Satish Chandra & Anil Kumar, Krishna Guest House, 1881 Haveli Jugal Kishore, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.

Subject: Reg. grant of license to run the guest house in the name and style of Krishna Guest House.

Sir, Vide application dated 2.9.2006, you have intimated that Shri Lakhpat Rai, proprietor of Hotel Krishna Guest House holder of License No. 58/ER/North has since been expired on 29.2.2004. According to Will, you all are legal heirs.

As per Regulation 21 of the Regulations for Keeping of Places of Public Entertainment in the Union Territory of Delhi, 1980, the license granted under the Regulations shall not be transferable or assignable but shall be personal for the benefit of the persons only to whom it is granted and where such person transfers or assigns his business to any other person or enters into an agreement with another person, involving his giving up the conduct or control over the business, the licence granted to him shall stand terminated on and from the date of such transaction. However, in the case of death of the licensee, his heir or legal representative may make an application within one month from the date of death to the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf,

to have the benefit of the licence for the unexpired portion of the term of the licence and the Commissioner or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf may decide the application having regard to the provision of regulations--6‖

In pursuance of the above quoted Regulations, neither you have given information regarding death of licensee Sh. Lakhpat Rai Sharma in a time bound period, that is, one month nor applied in this office for grant of license so far. You are running the guest house without license which is violation of the above Regulations. Hence license no. 58/ER/North issued in respect of late Sh. Lakhpat Rai to run the guest house under the name and style of Krishna Guest House, 1881 Haveli Jugal Kishore, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, is hereby cancelled and directed to deposit the above license in the office immediately.

Yours faithfully, sd/-

ACP/Hotel For Dy. Commissioner of Police (Licensing), Delhi

(emphasis supplied)

4. Perusal of the impugned order dated 27.9.2006 would

show that the Licensing Authority has premised its decision

to cancel the license of the petitioner on Regulation 21 of

the Regulations for Keeping of Places of Public

Entertainment in the Union Territory of Delhi, 1980. The

said Regulation 21 appertains to conditions for issuance a

license and, inter alia, makes provision for the benefit of

the unexpired portion of the license by the legal heirs of a

deceased licensee in the following terms:

―A license granted under these regulations for the keeping of public entertainment shall not be transferable or assignable but shall be personal for the benefit of the person only to whom it is granted and where such person transfers or assigns his business to any other person or enters into an agreement with another person, involving his giving up the conduct or control over the business, the license granted to him shall stand terminated on and from the date of such transaction. However, in the case of death of the licensee, his heir or legal representative may make an application within one month from the date of death to the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf, to have the benefit of the license for the unexpired portion of the term of the licence and the Commissioner or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf may decide the application having regard to the provision of regulations--6‖ (emphasis supplied)

5. Relying on the aforesaid Regulation 21, it is contended by

learned counsel for the Licensing Authority that it was

mandatory on the part of the petitioner to have intimated

the demise of his father and inasmuch as the petitioner

failed to make such intimation within the prescribed time

period and in the prescribed format, the Licensing

Authority was justified in its decision to cancel the license

that had been granted by it to his late father.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has

vehemently refuted the alleged omission on the part of the

petitioner to have intimated the death of his father to the

Licensing Authority. To buttress his point, learned counsel

has brought on record a letter dated 22.3.2004, which is

filed at page 33 of the present petition, and is reproduced

below:

D.C.P. (License) Police Station, Defence Colony New Delhi

Sub: Regarding License of Guest House

Sir,

I am feeling very voe (sic.) while informing you

that my father Sh. Lakhpat Rai , who was the

licensee of Krishna Guest House, 1881, Haveli,

Jugal Kishore has expired on 29.2.2004.

This business belongs to Joint Family and we are

his four sons. This letter is for your information

and further action.

Yours sincerely

Sd/-

s/o Late Shri Lakhpat Rai

1881, Haveli Jugal Kishore,

Chandni Chowk, Delhi

7. Relying on the aforesaid letter dated 22.3.2004, learned

counsel for the petitioner has contended that inasmuch as

the intimation about the petitioner's father's demise was

duly made within the prescribed period of one month, the

Licensing Authority was not justified in cancelling the

license that had been granted to his late father. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has further pleaded with this

Court that inasmuch as Regulation 21 does not prescribe

any particular format for furnishing information about the

death of a licensee, the respondent's allegation that the

petitioner did not intimate the death of his father in the

prescribed format be condoned as a mere irregularity by

treating the letter dated 22.3.2004 itself as an application

under Regulation 21 for grant of benefit of the unexpired

portion of a license. It is further alleged by the learned

counsel that the impugned order dated 27.9.2006 was

passed without complying with the principles of natural

justice inasmuch as neither any show cause notice was

issued nor any hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It is

submitted that it is the inter se disputes between the

petitioner and his brothers that perhaps triggered the

Licensing Authority into cancelling the license that had

been granted to the petitioner's late father.

8. I have learned counsel from both sides given my

thoughtful consideration to the matter.

9. I am of the view that the petitioner's letter dated 2.9.2006,

as a consequence of which the impugned order dated

27.9.2006 was passed, has not been appreciated by the

Licensing Authority in its correct perspective. The

Licensing Authority in its impugned order dated 27.9.2006

has assailed the letter dated 2.9.2006 on the touchstone of

Regulation 21. This stand of the Licensing Authority, I am

afraid, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that

while Regulation 21 deals with grant of the benefit of the

unexpired portion of a license, the letter dated 2.9.2006

was a substantive application made by the petitioner

seeking renewal of the license granted to it and ought to

have been appreciated as such. My observation is fortified

by Regulation 20 of the Regulations for Keeping of Places

of Public Entertainment in the Union Territory of Delhi of

1980, copy whereof is on record, wherein an express

provision is made for renewal of a license. Thus, what

should have been ordinarily treated and decided as an

application under Regulation 20 for renewal of a license

was, in fact, misconstrued by the Licensing Authority as a

time-barred application under Regulation 21.

10. Let us presume, for the sake of argument, that

Regulation 21 is applicable to the petitioner's letter dated

2.9.2006. Even in such a situation, the decision of the

Licensing Authority to cancel the license of the petitioner is

unsustainable on account of being vitiated by delay and

laches. On this front, the defence taken by the Licensing

Authority that it became aware of the death of the

petitioner's father for the first time vide the letter dated

2.9.2006 holds no merit. Perusal of the letter dated

22.3.2004 clearly belies the allegation that the death of

the petitioner's father was not intimated to the Licensing

Authority within the prescribed period of one month. I take

my cue from the concluding and operative portion of the

impugned order dated 17.1.2007, wherein the Lt.

Governor, whilst dismissing the appeal against the

impugned order dated 27.9.2006, has observed that

"[t]hough prima facie it is made out that an intimation

about the demise of the original licensee was sent to the

Licensing Authority, however, this cannot be construed as

an application under Regulation 21 to avail the benefit of

the unexpired portion of the term of the license." The

factum of the letter dated 22.3.2004 clearly lays bare that

the Licensing Authority was, as a matter of fact, intimated

about the death of the petitioner's father way back in the

year 2004, and by not cancelling the license of the

petitioner immediately upon being so informed and by

maintaining a continued silence until 27.9.2006, the

Licensing Authority not only acted upon the letter dated

22.3.2004 but also granted the benefit of the unexpired

portion of the term of the license that had been granted to

the petitioner's late father.

11. To set matters right, the moot question that now

arises is as to whether or not the letter dated 22.3.2004,

when analysed in retrospect, could be treated as an

application in terms of Regulation 21 so as to entitle the

petitioner to the unexpired portion of term of the license.

In the letter dated 22.3.2004, the petitioner has

categorically stated the name of the guest house, the

number of the guest house as well as the fact that the

guest house was a joint family business comprising the

late Sh. Lakhpat Rai and his four sons. Inter alia, a request

has also been made by the petitioner to the Licensing

Authority for further necessary action. Given that

Regulation 21 does not prescribe a definite format to apply

for the unexpired portion of the term of a license, it would

be unjust to hamstrung the benefit entitled to the

petitioner under Regulation 21 on the purported ground

that he did not apply for the said benefit in a prescribed

format.

12. In view thereof, I find the decision of the Licensing

Authority to cancel the license of the petitioner to be

harsh, erroneous and grossly vitiated by delay and laches.

Consequently, the present petition and the impugned

orders dated 27.9.2006 and 17.1.2007 are set aside. In

the given circumstances, I hereby direct the Licensing

Authority to renew the license of the petitioner from the

date it was cancelled subject to payment of license fee and

compliance of other conditions for grant of license. It is

made clear that all requisite permissions, including

permission from the fire department, shall be obtained by

the petitioner. Further, to balance the equities, I direct the

petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the irregularity

committed by him at the time of applying in terms of

Regulation 21. The said amount shall be deposited in the

Delhi Police Widow's Welfare Fund within two weeks from

today.

13. The present petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid

terms.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

August 07, 2008