Delhi High Court
Nikki Kod Its Proprietor Ajay ... vs Commissioner, Foods & Supplies & ... on 22 October, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7353/2007
NIKKI KOD ITS PROPRIETOR AJAY
KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. R. Sudhinder and Mr. Anurag
Chaudhary, Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER FOODS & SUPPLIES & ANR ... Respondents
Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate for the
respondent No.1.
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for the
respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 22.10.2009
1. In 1994, applications were invited by the respondent authorities for
appointment of a kerosene oil dealer at village Kondli, Delhi.
2. The impugned order dated 28th September, 2007, mentions the
factual history of the prolonged litigation for appointment of a Kerosene oil
dealer. However, the operative portion of the order is cryptic and devoid of
reasoning. The operative portion of the order dated 28th September, 2007,
reads as under:-
"In the light of above narration and in
order to allow a suitable candidate to run the
said KOD licence on merit, I have taken into
consideration the circumstances and rules
prevailing in 1994 viz-a-viz the present card
WPC NO.7353-2007 Page 1
position and circumstances. I have carefully
gone through the old allotment record of 1994
for grant of KOD licence against the vacancy
notified on 02.05.1994 in the notified area of
Kondli Village under Circle-38 (old Circle-46). I
have also perused the records of the interviews
of the five applicants taken by the Selection
Committee on 13.02.2007. After going through
all the relevant records and as observed by the
Selection Committee, I am of the view that the
applicant, who had been initially granted the
licence, i.e. M.s Rahul KOD, is the suitable
candidate for running the said KOD. In this
eventuality, I order that licence of M/s Nikki
KOD be cancelled with immediate effect.
3. The Commissioner was required to examine the comparative merits
of the applicants. There is no such examination. The order does not state as
to why M/s Rahul KOD was found to be the most suitable candidate. It may
be noted that certain guidelines have been issued; fixing criteria of
selection and the selection has to be in terms of the said guidelines. There
is no examination and consideration.
4. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 28th September,
2007, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner to
decide the same in terms of the above order and decision dated 26th
August, 2007, passed in the two writ petitions W.P.(C) Nos.1608/2007 and
1632/2007, titled VIG & Kaushik KOD Vs. Dy. Commissioner (Revenue) &
Others and Ram KOD Vs. Commissioner Food & Supplies & Others.
WPC NO.7353-2007 Page 2
5. The operation of the order dated 28th September, 2007, was stayed
by this Court by the interim order dated 5th October, 2007. Till the decision
by the Commissioner, status quo as it existed prior to 28th September, 2007
will continue. There will be no order as to cost. The question whether two
or more licenses can be granted is left open to be decided by the
Commissioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
OCTOBER 22, 2009
NA
WPC NO.7353-2007 Page 3
