Delhi High Court
Smt. Shashi Devi vs Commissioner, Food & Supplies & ... on 7 December, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9059/2008
SMT. SHASHI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER FOOD & SUPPLIES & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Mukul Singh and Ms. Pareena
Swarup, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 07.12.2009
The grievance of the petitioner Smt. Shashi Devi is that her application dated 11th
December, 2006, for shifting of kerosene oil depot license from C-17, Molarband
Extension, Badarpur (Circle No.36), New Delhi to plot No.48, Pocket-A, Phase-II, Madan
Pur, Khadar, J.J. Colony (Circle No.36), New Delhi, has been wrongly rejected.
2. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner, Smt. Shashi Devi had earlier
filed W.P.(C) No.6522/2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 30 th July, 2008.
3. In order dated 30th July, 2008, it was noticed that the card position in the circle,
where the petitioner wants to shift was much better than the card position where the
petitioner was operating. The petitioner had only 47 cards. The Court noticed that
application for shifting was opposed by the area MLA and the petitioner was asked to
submit 'no objection certificate' (NOC) from the area MLA. It was held that the
respondents had taken contradictory stand. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that
WPC No.9059/2008 Page 1
there was no stipulation for NOC from area MLA in the control order but as per
departmental guidelines, recommendation of area MLA was required. During the course
of hearing, the respondents were not able to produce any such circular/guidelines.
Accordingly, the direction of the respondents that the petitioner should produce NOC
from the area MLA was set aside and the respondents were asked to reconsider the
application for shifting on merits..
4. By order dated 10th October, 2008, the respondents have rejected the request of
the petitioner for transfer of kerosene oil depot (KOD) license, inter alia, on the ground
that there are already three KODs and the card position of these kerosene oil depots
was not sufficient even as per the norms of the department. As per the card position,
each KOD were allocated about 1449 cards, whereas as per the departmental norms,
each KOD should have 2,500 cards.
5. The impugned order does not notice the card position of the petitioner i.e 47
cards. Further, counsel for the petitioner has highlighted that M/s Gajender KOD was
permitted to shift to this area, though they had filed application for shifting of licence
only on 23rd January, 2007, whereas the petitioner had filed the application of shifting of
licence on 11th December, 2006. Thus, the application of the petitioner for the shifting
of licence was earlier in point of time but was on the first occasion wrongly rejected
because of failure to submit NOC from the area MLA. The petitioner cannot be
penalized and denied shifting because of the wrong decision of the respondents.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10th October, 2008, is set aside. The
respondents will reconsider the matter on the question whether petitioner had better
WPC No.9059/2008 Page 2
right to claim shifting of the KOD viz. Gajender KOD. If required, notice will be issued to
Gajender KOD before any order is passed. The respondents will decide the matter
expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date copy of this order is
received. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2009
NA
WPC No.9059/2008 Page 3
