Citation : 2013 Latest Caselaw 5158 Del
Judgement Date : 11 November, 2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11.11.2013
+ W.P.(C) 6903/2013
M/S. BANSL STORE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Pradeep Gupta, Mr Parinva
Gupta, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Amiet Andlay, Adv for
Assistant Commissioner (North)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Clause 4 of Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution)
Order, 1981, reads as under:-
" 4. Suspension/cancellation of authorization:
(1) The Administrator or the Deputy Commissioner may at any time, whether at the request of the person to whom an authorization has been issued or on his contravention or attempt to contravene any of the provisions of the said order or directions issued thereunder from time to time in this behalf or any term or condition of the authorization or any directions issued thereunder after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him
to amend, suspend or rescind the authorization issued under this Order.
(2) Without prejudice to any action that may be taken under sub-clause (1) in respect if any contravention of any of the provisions made by or under this order, the Deputy Commissioner may forfeit the whole or a part of the security deposited under sub clause (2) thereupon the authorized wholesaler or fair price shop holder whose security has been forfeited shall forthwith deposit an amount equivalent to the forfeited so as to make the efficiency in the amount of prescribed amount of security. Provided that before passing any order under sub-clause (1) or sub clause (2), the Deputy Commissioner shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the party concerned.
Provided further that if the authorization is under consideration for action and it is necessary to suspend it pending enquiry the provisions contained in the foregoing proviso shall not apply subject to the condition that the period of such suspension shall not exceed three months.
Provided further that a copy of every order made under sub clause (1) or sub clause (2) shall be supplied to the person concerned free of charge."
2. It would thus be seen that the Administrator or Deputy
Commissioner is competent to amend, suspend or rescind, the
authorization, after making appropriate enquiries, in terms of sub-clause
(1) of clause 4, extracted above. However, he must necessarily give a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned party in terms of the
first proviso to the aforesaid order. If, however, in a particular case, the
Administrator or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, deems
it necessary to suspend the authorization pending enquiry contemplated
under sub-clause (1) of clause 4, he can suspend such authorization,
without giving an opportunity of hearing for the purpose of such
suspension. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid clause would mean that
if the Administrator or the Deputy Commissioner, as to the case may be,
seeks to amend, suspend or rescind the authorization, he will give an
opportunity of hearing to the person concerned in terms of the first
proviso, but in a case where he also deems it necessary to suspend the
authorization pending such enquiry, he may do so for a limited period of
three months from the date on which the suspension is ordered. He need
not give an opportunity of hearing before ordering suspension, in view
of the second proviso to the order. In case, the Administrator of the
Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, takes a final decision on
amending, suspending or rescinding the authorization, before expiry of
the aforesaid period of three months, the matter has to thereafter be dealt
with in terms of the final order passed by him. If suspension order does
not specify the period of suspension of the authorization and no final
order on the proposed amendment, suspension or rescission is taken,
within a period of three months from the date on which the authorization
was suspended, such authorization automatically revives on expiry of
the aforesaid period of three months. For this purpose, the period of
three months shall compute from the date on which the authorization
was suspended. I also agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner
that it would be necessary for the Administrator or Deputy
Commissioner, as the case may be, while exercising his power under the
second proviso has to form an opinion and record it in his order that it is
necessary to suspend the authorization pending enquiry contemplated
under the said order.
3. In the case before this Court, the authorization came to be
suspended on 21.08.2013. In case a final decision in the matter is taken
by the concerned officer within three months from the date on which the
authorization was suspended, further consequences in the matter would
flow only in terms of the final order passed by the officer. If, however,
he does not pass a final order within a period of three months from the
date of suspension, order suspending the authorization shall get revived
immediately on expiry of three months, computed from the date of
suspension order. It is made clear that the concerned officer can
continue with enquiry even after expiry of three months from the date of
suspension and proceed to pass a final order, after giving opportunity of
hearing to the person concerned and the only effect of his not being able
to pass a final order within three months, from the date of suspension
would be automatic revival of authorization, on expiry of three months
from the date of suspension.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
V.K. JAIN, J
NOVEMBER 11, 2013 BG
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!