Delhi High Court
Smt.Poonam vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 7 March, 2014
Author: Manmohan
31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5369/2012 & CM APPL. 10957/2012
SMT.POONAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate with
Ms. Aarti Shakalya, Ms. Poonam
Mutreja, Mr. Vishal Gupta and
Ms. Mansi Ajmani, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate with
Ms.Heena Mongia, Ms. Pallavi Shali,
Advocates for R-1 to R-3.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate for R-4.
% Date of Decision : 07th March, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18 th
July, 2012 whereby respondent No.4 has been issued authorisation to run a
Fair Price Shop in Baba Colony, Burari, New Delhi. It is pertinent to
mention that the petitioner had also applied for the Fair Price Shop, but was
unsuccessful.
2. Mr. Pardeep Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
allocation of Fair Price Shop to respondent No.4 is violative of Rule 3(6)(4)
of the Delhi Specified Article (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1981
inasmuch as respondent No.4 had not shown due diligence in support of its
financial position. Rule 3(6)(4) reads as under:-
"3. Issue of Authorization to a wholesalers and fair price shop
holders
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(6) Every application for the issue of an authorization shall be
considered having due regard to:-
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(4) The financial position and capacity of the applicant in
performing the functions of an authorized wholesaler or a fair
price shop holder as the case may be.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner draws this Court's attention to the
report prepared by the clerical staff of respondents No.1 to 3 wherein it is
stated that sole proprietor of respondent No.4 possess a Below Poverty Line
(for short 'BPL') Card No. BPL 02080218.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner also states that the grant of Fair Price
Shop to respondent No.4 is violative of Rule 3(6)(1) of the Delhi Specified
Article (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1981. Learned counsel for
petitioner contends that respondents No.1 to 3 did not ascertain as to
whether the respondent No.4 is conducting his business or has his business
premises situated in an area or locality for which authorisation had been
issued. He further contends that respondents No.1 to 3 have taken into
account the residential address of respondent No.4 rather than his place of
business while allocating the Fair Price Shop. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for petitioner lays emphasis on the layout plan to show that
Vashisht Enclave, where respondent No.4's business is being conducted, is
different from Baba colony in respect of which authorisation for running a
Fair Price Shop had been granted.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Sonia Arora, learned counsel for respondents
No.1 to 3 states that an elaborate procedure had been followed by
respondents No.1 to 3 before awarding the Fair Price Shop to respondent
No.4. She states that firstly a report had been prepared by the clerical staff
and subsequently, a Selection Board had approved the allotment of the Fair
Price Shop to respondent No.4.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has also handed over
certain extracts of the official file to show that sole proprietor of respondent
No.4 had filed three affidavits stating that he had adequate finances for
running the Fair Price Shop inasmuch as he had Rs.70,315/- in his bank
account. She points out that respondent No.4 had also given an undertaking
not to withdraw the said amount for three months. She submits that holding
of a BPL card is not a disqualification for allotting a FPS licence to a person.
7. She states that just because Vashisht Enclave has a separate welfare
association does not mean that Vashisht Enclave is not in Baba Colony. She
emphasises that Vashisht Enclave is very much a part of Baba Colony.
8. Mr. Yogesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 draws this
Court's attention to the instructions for filling up of application form and
eligibility criteria for allotment of outlet. He submits that the only financial
criteria which the respondent No.4 had to comply with was to have a
minimum bank balance of Rs.50,000/-, which respondent No.4 fulfilled on
the date of the application. He states that respondent No.4 had voluntarily
surrendered his BPL Card on 25th March, 2012--i.e. much before the filing
of writ petition.
9. In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioner states that even as of today,
the sole proprietor of respondent No.4 is a BPL Card holder. He states that
being a BPL card holder means that petitioner and his family members
income is less than Rs.24,000/- per annum. He, however, states that for the
purpose of allocation of Fair Price Shop, respondent No.4 had shown a bank
balance of Rs.70,315/- as well as the ownership of a car and a house and
having paid advance rent of Rs.6,600/- for the shop.
10. Having perused the papers, this Court finds that the last day for filing
of application for allotment of Fair Price Shop in the notified area of Baba
Colony, Burari, Delhi was 02nd November, 2011. One of the essential
eligibility conditions for allotment of PDS Outlet was that the applicant
should be financially sound. Condition 1(g) of Instruction for Filing the
Application Form and Eligibility Criteria for PDS Outlet states "The
applicant should be financially sound."
11. In the opinion of this Court, respondents No.1 to 3 have, in the present
case, failed to carry out due diligence as respondent No.4 has evidently
made either contradictory or false statements. Respondent No.4 cannot be
both a BPL card holder and at the same time own a car, house as well as
bank balance of Rs.70,315/- and pay rent of Rs.6,600/- for a shop!
12. This Court is of the view that a BPL Card holder cannot be considered
financially sound as the State has devised the concept of BPL to provide
state subsidy to such sort of people.
13. This Court does not agree with the stand of respondents No. 1 to 3
that holding a BPL card is not a disqualification for grant of a Fair Price
Shop licence, as the essential condition for allotment of PDS Outlet is that
an entity or individual has to be financially sound--which a BPL card
holder cannot be.
14. Certainly if the State has a scheme or reservation for the economically
weaker sections or for the educated unemployed, then a BPL card holder can
be considered for allotment. But as long as the essential eligibility criteria
stipulates that an applicant has to be financially sound for allotment of PDS
outlet, this Court is of the view that a BPL card holder cannot be considered
for allotment of a Fair Price Shop licence.
15. Since this Court is in agreement with the first submission of the
petitioner, it is not examining the petitioner's second ground of violation of
Rule 3(6)(1) of Delhi Specified Article (Regulation of Distribution) Order,
1981.
16. This Court is amazed at the ease with which respondent No. 4 has
obtained on one day a BPL card and after a few days, has declared himself
to be financially sound even without surrendering the BPL card.
Consequently, this Court directs the Chief Secretary of Government of NCT
of Delhi to appoint a relatively senior officer to conduct a departmental
inquiry against the officials who took the decision to allot the BPL card and
Fair Price Shop in question. If any officer/official is found to be negligent
or remiss in his duty, a suitable entry in his service record is directed to be
made.
17. In view of the aforesaid, the allotment of Fair Price Shop in favour of
respondent No.4 is cancelled and respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to take
suitable steps to allot the shop in question in accordance with law.
18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, present petition and
application stand disposed of.
Order dasti.
MANMOHAN, J
MARCH 07, 2014
js
