Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Gupta vs Mcd And Others on 21 July, 2008
Author: G. S. Sistani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP(C)No.6725/2007.
# SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA ..... PETITIONER.
Through : Mr.Achin Aren for Mr.D.K.
Rustogi, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
DELHI & OTHERS ..... RESPONDENTS.
^ Through : Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Sr.Advocate
with Ms.Smita Shankar,
Mr.K. Faisal and Mr.G.Divedi,
Advs. for the respondent-MCD.
Mr.P.N. Bhardwaj and Mr.A.
Bhardwaj, Adv. for respondent
No.4.
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
21.07.2008
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
+WP(C)No.6725/2007
1. The present writ petition is, inter alia, directed against the order of
the Dy. Health Officer, City Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
dated 6.9.2007, revoking the trade license of the petitioner on the
allegation that the petitioner had filed forged documents with
regard to his status in his tenanted business premises.
WP(C)No.6725/2007 Pages 1 of 7
2. Notice in the present petition was issued as far back as on
12.9.2007. On an application filed by the petitioner seeking
interim relief, this Court vide order dated 24.9.2007 stayed the
effect and operation of the impugned order dated 6.9.2007, which
stay continues till date.
3. Briefly stated, the facts in the instant case are that the petitioner
has been doing the business of selling khoya, paneer and sweets
from his tenanted premises bearing No. 470, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi on a valid license since 1999. The license of the petitioner is
stated to have been renewed from time to time. The last renewal
granted to the petitioner is stated to have expired on 31.3.2007,
pursuant whereof, the petitioner instituted proceedings for
renewal of his license which are pending till date. The respondent
no. 3, namely, the Dy. Health Officer, City Zone, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, vide show cause notice dated 22.12.2006,
and later, vide reminder thereof dated 8.1.2007, sought an
explanation from the petitioner as to why his license ought not be
cancelled on account of false claims and documents. The
petitioner vide reply dated 16.1.2007 clarified his status with
respect to his tenanted business premises and filed the requisite
documents in support thereof including rent receipts. However,
the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 6.9.2006 revoked the
license of the petitioner thereby leading to the present petition.
4. For felicity of reference, the impugned order dated 6.9.2007, filed
alongwith the writ petition, is reproduced below:
WP(C)No.6725/2007 Pages 2 of 7
"No. DHO/City Zone/2007/O/592 Dated: 6.9.2007
To,
Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta,
M/s. Vishal Mava Bhandar,
470 (GF), Main Chandni Chowk,
Delhi - 110006
Subject: Revocation of trade license for running
the trade of sale of Khoya,Paneer and
Sweets at 470 (GF), Main
Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 06.
This is to inform you that your trade license for
running the trade of sale of khoya, paneer and sweets
at premises no. 470, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 06 has
been revoked as per order of Addl. Commisioner
(Health & Estt.) dated 31.8.2007.
You are hereby directed to close the trade
immediately, failing which necessary action as per
provision of DMC Act, 1957 will be initiated against
you.
Dy. Health Officer
City Zone."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned
order dated 6.9.2007 primarily on the ground that it does not
conform to the principles of natural justice. Albeit it is not disputed
that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner to which he
filed a reply and that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of
hearing, it is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned order dated 6.9.2007 does not make
good the reasons which compelled respondent no. 3 to revoke the
trade license of the petitioner. Further, in order to vindicate the
rights of the petitioner to run his business from his tenanted
premises in question, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn
WP(C)No.6725/2007 Pages 3 of 7
the attention of this Court to a judgment dated 4.8.2002 passed in
Eviction Petition No. E 93/1995 entitled Madho Pershad Kapoor
v. Harbans Lal Mehra & Ors, wherein the Additional Rent
Controller, whilst dismissing the petition, has held that the father
of the present petitioner was a tenant in the subject premises.
6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that
the respondents have followed the principles of natural justice and
it is only after considering the reply of the petitioner that the
impugned order dated 6.9.2007 has been passed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the
documents on record.
8. The principles determining the scope and extent of judicial review
of administrative orders and decisions have been formulated,
applied and re-iterated in a plethora of judgments. While I do not
consider it necessary to delve upon all the said decisions, suffice it
is recall the cardinal principle that judicial review, in essence, is
aimed at the decision-making process and not the decision per se.
To judge the validity of any administrative order or statutory
discretion, normally the Wednesbury Test is to be applied to find
out if the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural
improprieties or was one which no sensible decision-maker could,
on the material before him and within the frame work of the law,
have arrived at. The Court would consider whether relevant
matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant
matters had been taken into account or whether the decision was
WP(C)No.6725/2007 Pages 4 of 7
not bona fide. The Court would also consider whether the decision
was absurd or perverse. The Court would, however, not go into
the correctness of the choice made by the administrator amongst
the various alternatives open to him. Nor would the Court
substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of
judicial review is thus limited to correcting the errors of law or
procedural errors leading to injustice and violation of principles of
natural justice.
9. In the present petition, the impugned order dated 6.9.2007 was
passed in pursuance of the show cause notices dated 22.12.2006
and 8.1.2007 alleging that the petitioner had filed forged
documents with regard to his status in his business premises. In
response thereto, the petitioner filed his reply dated 16.1.2007
clarifying his status with respect to his tenanted business
premises. The requisite documents in support thereof, including
rent receipts, were also filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the
petitioner was also afforded a personal hearing in the matter by
the respondent no. 3. However, the impugned order dated neither
records the factum of the show cause notices dated 22.12.2006
and 8.1.2007 nor takes into consideration the reply dated
16.1.2007 of the petitioner or the submissions made by him the
course of personal hearing.
10. The opacity inherent in the impugned order dated 6.9.2007 is
further laid bare by the fact that it does not explain as to how and
under what circumstances the order dated 31.8.2007 of the Addl.
WP(C)No.6725/2007 Pages 5 of 7
Commissioner (Health & Estt.), on the basis whereof the said
impugned order is stated to have been passed, came into
existence. The petitioner, in fact, has alleged that he was not
supplied with a copy of the order dated 31.8.2007. Perusal of the
order dated 31.8.2007, filed alongwith the counter-affidavit of
respondent no. 4, reveals that the said order was passed in
pursuance of a complaint filed by Nisha Sharma to whom the
previous landlord of the petitioner, namely, Madho Prasad Kapoor,
had sold his property including the tenanted business premises of
the petitioner. A copy the complaint filed by the said Nisha
Sharma alleges that the petitioner had obtained his license by
filing forged documents.
11. Without further going into the merits of the matter and
notwithstanding the veracity of the decision to revoke the trade
license of the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 ought not to have
taken such decision without appreciating the reply dated
16.1.2007 of the petitioner and the documents filed in support
thereof as also the submissions made by the petitioner in the
personal hearing. It was especially incumbent upon respondent
no. 3 to explain the antecedents of the order of the Addl.
Commissioner (Health & Estt.) dated 31.8.2007 inasmuch as it
was on the basis of the said order that the impugned order dated
6.9.2007 was ultimately passed against the petitioner.
12. In view thereof, I find the impugned order dated 6.9.2007
revoking the trade license of the petitioner to be manifestly a non-
WP(C)No.6725/2007 Pages 6 of 7
speaking order, grossly vitiated by procedural impropriety, and
thus, liable to be quashed. Consequently, the present petition is
allowed and the impugned order dated 6.9.2007 is quashed.
Taking into consideration the reply dated 16.1.2007 filed by the
petitioner as well as his submissions in the personal hearing
afforded to him in pursuance of the show cause notices dated
22.12.2006 and 8.1.2007, the respondent no. 3 shall pass a
speaking order explaining the reasons for his decision. Needless
to say that the findings and observations of this Court in the
present order shall be without prejudice to final decision that the
respondents take after due compliance with the principles of
natural justice.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed
off.
July 21, 2008 G.S. Sistani, J.
'ssn'
WP(C)No.6725/2007 Pages 7 of 7
