M/S Tika Ram Dinesh Kumar vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5001 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                              Date of Decision: 30.10.2013

+               W.P.(C) 6839 of 2013 & CM No.14831 of 2013

M/S TIKA RAM DINESH KUMAR                  ..... Petitioner
              Through: Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Mr. Parinav Gupta,
                       Ms. Aarti S., Mr. Vishal Gupta &
                       Ms. Poonam M., Advs.

                                      versus

GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.      ..... Respondents
                Through:  Mr. Anjum Javed & Mr. Mirza Amir B.,
                          Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                                    JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner before this Court holds FPS License No.7133 for sale of various food articles such as wheat, rice and sugar. An inspection of the premises of the petitioner was carried out on 13.7.2013 in the presence of the petitioner and certain records were seized. The case of the respondents is that during the aforesaid inspection, the following deficiencies were found by the inspecting team:

SFAs Qty. As per stock Qty. As per physical Variation register (in Qtls.) verification (in Qtls.) Wheat 34.26 Qtls. 37.96 Qtls. 3.7 Qtls Excess Rice 14.44 Qtls. 15.71 Qtls. 1.27 Qtls. Excess Sugar 29.22 Qtls. 29.50 Qtls. 0.28 Qtls. Excess

An FIR, being FIR No.220 dated 24.8.2013 at Police Station Bharat Nagar, Delhi, was then registered against the petitioner. Vide impugned

order dated 19.9.2013, purporting to have been passed under clause 4 of the Delhi Specified Food articles (Regulation and Distribution) Control Order, 1981, the authorisation of the petitioner was placed under suspension pending inquiry. The petitioner was directed to show cause why the said license/authorisation be not cancelled and the security be not forfeited. The petitioner has already responded to the aforesaid notice on 15.10.2013.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid suspension order could not have been passed without giving a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to him and having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the said order to the extent FPS licence is suspended needs to be quashed.

3. A similar issue came up before this Court for consideration in WP (C) No.5397/2013 titled M/s. Ajay Store Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. decided on 17.5.2013 and the following view was taken:

"W.P.(C) 3285/2013 and CM No. 6225/2013 (Stay)

xxxx

The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that while issuing show cause notice, the Assistant Commissioner (South) has simultaneously suspended the FPS licence which had been granted to it, without giving opportunity to it to show cause against the said suspension. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 25th July, 2008 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 5274/2008 where in a similar case, this Court, referred to a Notification dated issued by the Department of Food and Supplies under the Essential Commodities Act. The said notification, to the extent relevant, reads as under:-

"4. Suspension/cancellation of authorization: (1) The administration or the Deputy Commissioner may at any time, whether at the request of the persons to whom and 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 of rescind the authorization issued under this order.

(2) Without prejudice to any action that may be taken under sub-clause (1) in respect of any contravention of any of the provisions made by or under this order, the Deputy Commissioner may forfeit the whole or part of the security deposited under sub-clause (2), thereupon the authorized wholesaler or the fair price shop holder whose security has been forfeited shall forthwith deposit an amount equivalent to the one forfeited so as to make up the deficiency 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 reason opportunity of being heard to the party concerned."

Since the order of suspension appears to have been passed without giving prior opportunity of hearing to the petitioner qua the suspension, prima facie, the order seems to be in contravention of the aforesaid notification besides being in violation of the principles of natural justice."

4. Since the impugned order dated 19.9.2013 to the extent it directs suspension of licence of the petitioner has been passed in contravention of the requirement of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it is liable to be quashed. The order to the extent it directs suspension of the licence of the petitioner is hereby set aside. It is, however, made clear that quashing of the order to the extent of suspension of the licence would no more be applicable, in case the licence granted to the petitioner is permanently cancelled in terms of the show cause notice issued to him. In other words, the petitioner shall continue to operate the FPS only till the time a final order pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice is passed and therefore, he shall abide by the final order.

5. The petitioner has already responded to the show cause notice. A final decision pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice shall be taken by the respondent within eight (8) weeks from today. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the relevant record was handed over to the police and has been filed in the concerned trial court, the concerned officers are finding it difficult to comply with the directions of the Court for a final decision in a time bound manner. It is, therefore, directed that if required for the purpose of final decision pursuant to the show cause notice dated 19.9.2013, the concerned Assistant Commissioner will be entitled to obtain copies of the relevant record from the trial court in which the said record has been filed.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Dasti.

OCTOBER 30, 2013                                              V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh