M/S.Raj Pal vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 1625 Del

$~
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        W.P.(C) 8332/2007
%                                               Judgment dated 26.03.2014

         M/S.RAJ PAL                                       ..... Petitioner
                              Through :   Mr.Pradeep Gupta, Advocate
                              versus
         GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS                   ..... Respondents

Through : Mr.S.D. Salwan and Ms.Latika Dutta, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed by petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ directing respondent no.1 to 3 to quash the impugned cancellation order dated 10.10.2007 issued by respondent no.2.

2. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner had been granted licence on 30.10.981 for running the Kerosene Oil Depot (for short, „KOD) No.2405/81. A copy of the license dated 30.10.1981, granted in favour of the petitioner, has been filed along with the writ petition.

4. On the basis of an inspection carried out certain discrepancies were found and an FIR No.107/1986 was registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi; and vide judgment dated 17.11.1986 fine in the sum of Rs.250/- was imposed on the petitioner by the Court, and it was held that in case the fine is not paid then as an alternative the petitioner will have to

undergo two months imprisonment. As the petitioner had paid the amount of fine, petitioner has not undergone any sentence and he was released on probation.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was running the KOD shop for the last about 21 years after even passing of the judgment dated 17.11.1986; and the impugned show cause notice dated 5.9.2007 and the order of cancellation order dated 10.10.2007 were issued to the petitioner by respondent solely on the basis of the judgment dated 17.11.1986.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is clear that the Show Cause Notice dated 5.9.2007 and order of cancellation dated 10.10.2007 were issued by respondent on the basis of the directions / letter dated 4 th July, 2007 passed by the higher authorities [Central Vigilance Committee].

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be punished for an offence committed about twenty one years ago. Counsel further submits that during the period of twenty one years the license of the petitioner was renewed from time to time. Counsel also contends that the license of the petitioner cannot be cancelled after such a long gap without any cogent or plausible explanation with regard to delay on the part of the respondents. Counsel also contends that on account of the delay the respondent has condoned the act of the petitioner and the action of the respondent is stale.

8. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that are no reasons in the judgment dated 17.11.1986, which would justify the action of the respondents of cancellation against the petitioner. Counsel contends that it is the case of the petitioner that after the Committee was formed by the Supreme Court of India, sweeping actions were taken without any application of mind and under the fear of strictures being passed and action being taken against the erring officials.

9. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from unreasonableness, non-application of mind and is arbitrary. It is also submitted that similarly situated persons had approached this court by filing writ petition bearing No.4030/2006, which was allowed primarily on the ground that reliance on stale material could not be justified and action was arbitrary.

10. Mr.Salwan, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that once the petitioner had committed breach and he was convicted, the respondents were well within its right to cancel the licence of the petitioner firm, in terms of Clause 6 of Delhi Kerosene Oil (Export and Price) Control Order 1962, which reads as under:

"6. Contravention of the terms and conditions of licence: (1) If any licencee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and condition or directions or any provisions of this order then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against licensee according to law, his licence can be suspended by order in writing by the Commissioner. Proviso to clause 6(1) order vide Dt. 15.2.80.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-clause 1 if the Commissioner is satisfied that the licensee has contravened any of the terms and conditions of a licence or the directions issued under clause 3-D or any provision of this order and cancellation of his licence is called for, may after giving the licencee a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation by order in writing cancel his licence and shall forward a copy thereof to the licensee.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contains in this clause, where a licencee is convicted by a court of law for breach of the terms and conditions of the licence or contravention of the provision of this order the licensing authority may by order in writing, cancel his licence. Provided that no such order shall be passed until the appeal, if any, filed against such conviction is dismissed and where no such appeal is filed until the period of limitation for filing an appeal expires."

11. Counsel for the respondent submits that once the breach was committed respondents were bound to cancel the licence of the petitioner firm.

12. I have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the petition as also the annexures filed along with the petition. The basic facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had been granted licence on 30.10.1981 for running the KOD No.2405/81. On the basis of an inspection carried out, an FIR No.107/1986 was registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi; and vide judgment dated 17.11.1986 fine in the sum of Rs.250/- was imposed on the petitioner by the Court, and it was held that in case the fine is not paid, then as an alternative the petitioner will have to undergo two months imprisonment. As the petitioner had paid the amount of fine, petitioner has not undergone any sentence and he was released on probation. It is also submitted that the respondents were aware of the judgment dated 17.11.1986. It is only after a gap of about 21 years, show cause notice for cancellation of the KOD was issued and the licence was cancelled as according to the respondents, petitioner had incurred a disqualification having been convicted by a criminal court, in terms of the 1962 Order.

13. Admittedly, no action was taken against the petitioner firm for about 21 years. Thus in my view no action lies against the petitioner firm for the act committed. Even otherwise having not taken action for about 21 years and on the contrary having renewed licence of the petitioner firm from time to time would amount to condoning the act of the wrong doer; and after about 21 years, the respondents are estopped from taking action against the petitioner having waived off their rights by their own conduct. The Government must act in fair, just and expeditious manner. The delay and inaction on the part of the respondent has resulted in creation of valuable rights in favour of the petitioner.

14. It is settled law that a statutory authority is required to act reasonably, fairly and expeditiously. The respondents have not only slept over their right, but also there is no reasonable and plausible explanation for the gross delay, and, thus, the respondents waived their right for taking any action against the petitioner firm; and the respondents have given a reasonable belief to the petitioner that his right and title is good and shall not be disturbed, hence, the licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled, at the belated stage.

15. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the report of Justice Wadhwa Committee constituted by the Supreme Court of India. In the light of the aforesaid facts and observations, respondents cannot at this stage get benefit of their inaction or the findings of the report.

16. In view of the aforesaid, petitioner firm cannot be penalized, at this stage.

A party is bound to act reasonably more so a statutory authority. The authority was under a duty to act reasonably and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. Further by not acting within a reasonable period of time and by agreeing to renew the licence of the petitioner firm, the respondents have given a reasonable cause to believe that a right has accrued in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned cancellation order dated 10.10.2007 issued by respondent is quashed. Interim order dated 13.11.2007 is made absolute.

17. Parties shall bear their own costs.

G.S.SISTANI, J MARCH 26, 2014 ssn