Delhi High Court
M/S Sathish Store vs The Special Commissioner ... on 18 February, 2016
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 984/2016 & CM APPLs. 4309/2016, 4310/2016
M/S SATHISH STORE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate
versus
THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER (ADMN.),
DEPTT. OF FOOD & SUPPLIES & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC (Civil), GNCTD.
Mr. S. Chakraborty, R-2 in person.
% Date of Decision: 18th February, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27th January,
2016 passed by respondent no. 1, whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed and
the order dated 3rd November, 2015 passed by respondent no. 2 was upheld.
Petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 3rd November, 2015 passed by
respondent no. 2 whereby Fair Price Shop (for short "FPS") licence/ authorisation of
petitioner was suspended and the security was forfeited on the ground that petitioner
had shifted the premises of its FPS from F-3, Dakshin Puri Market to F-18 & 19,
Dakshin Puri Market without prior approval of respondents.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner refers to page 46 of the paper book to contend
that petitioner had shifted its FPS to the new location after taking temporary
permission from the Assistant Commissioner (Central), Department of Food and
Supplies.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner also points out that the Joint Commissioner
(New Delhi & Central) in its order dated 25th August, 2014 had recorded the
admission of Shri R.K. Rathee, Assistant Commissioner (Central) to the effect that
he had granted temporary permission to the petitioner to run FPS at the new address.
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned additional standing counsel accepts
notice. He states that the petitioner had not produced before the Appellate Authority
the document granting temporary permission by Assistant Commissioner (Central).
6. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Appellate Authority vide its order
dated 25th August, 2014 after considering the temporary permission granted by Mr.
R.K. Rathee, Assistant Commissioner (Central) had remanded the matter to
Assistant Commissioner (New Delhi) for a final decision within thirty days.
7. However, instead of acting on the remand order, respondents issued fresh
show cause notices dated 7th August, 2015 and 13th October, 2015.
8. In the opinion of this Court, since the matter had been remanded, there was
no question of issuing fresh show cause notices on the same allegations. Further, as
temporary permission letter annexed with the appeal had not been considered by the
Appellate Authority, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition needs to
be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27th January, 2016 passed by
respondent no. 1 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2 to
decide the same afresh after taking into account the Joint Commissioner's initial
order dated 25th August, 2014 as well as the temporary permission annexed at page
no. 46 of the paper book. Respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the matter as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months.
10. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition and applications stand
disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 18, 2016
rn
