Delhi High Court
M/S Hasija Bros. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 17 May, 2017
$~1
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.05.2017
+ W.P.(C) 4201/2017
M/S HASIJA BROS. ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sanjiv Kumar & Ms Vasudha
For the Respondents: Mr Akshay Choudhary for Mr Raman Duggal for
GNCTD.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
17.05.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM No.18391/2017 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4201/2017 & CM No.18390/2017(stay)
1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
2. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for
hearing today.
3. The petitioner impugns Suspension Order dated 29.10.2016,
whereby the Fair Price Shop License issued to the petitioner has been
suspended.
4. The petitioner was issued an authorization to run a Fair Price
Shop (FPS) under the name and style of M/s. Hasija Bros. by the
Department of Food and Supplies, Government of NCT of Delhi.
5. The team deployed by the Enforcement Branch by order dated
11.10.2016 conducted a survey of the petitioner store and reported
discrepancies in the stock and non-supply of Specified Food Articles.
6. Consequent to the survey, the impugned Suspension Order
dated 29.10.2016 was issued to the petitioner thereby suspending FPS
licence with immediate effect.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a Circular dated
16.03.2004 issued by the respondents to contend that where a licence
is suspended, the maximum period of suspension can be three months
and all proceedings have to be concluded within the period of three
months.
8. Reliance is also placed on the Delhi Specified Article
(Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1981 to contend that period of
suspension cannot exceed three months.
9. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court dated
10.04.2017 in WP(C) No.2963/17 titled M/s. Ajit Kapoor Store vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., wherein in similar circumstances,
where the period of suspension has extended beyond three months, the
Suspension Order has been set aside.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms
of Circular dated 06.04.2005, the maximum penalty that could have
been imposed upon the petitioner is a fine of Rs.5,000/- and no
suspension order could have been issued.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that proceedings,
consequent to the show-cause notice, are continuing and a one-man
Inquiry Committee has been constituted, which is examining the case
of the petitioner.
12. The FPS license of the petitioner has been suspended with
immediate effect by Suspension Order dated 29.10.2016.
13. Relevant portion of the Circular dated 16.03.2004 relied upon
by the Petitioner reads as under:-
"******
In case where variation in stocks is more than
50 ltrs. in case of KOD and 50 kgs. In respect
of FPS, license can be suspended initially for a
maximum period of thee months by the Zonal
Asstt. Commissioner. However, in such cases
quasi-judicial proceedings will be completed at
the level of Zonal Add. Secretary-cum-Addl.
Commissioner. In those cases also the Asstt.
Commissioner will issue show-cause notice and
obtain a reply of the FPS. He/she will put up
the case to his/her Zonal Addl. Secretary/Addl.
Commissioner with his/her observation on the
charges levelled in the show-cause notice and
reply filed by the FPS holder. The Zonal Addl.
Secretary-cum-Addl. Commissioner will be
required to finalise the proceedings within
three months."
(underlining supplied)
14. The circular dated 16.03.2004 stipulates that the licence can be
initially suspended for a maximum period of three months and
thereafter the proceedings have to be finalised within the period of
three months.
15. Clause 4 of the Delhi Specified Article (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 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 (l) 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
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."
(Underlining supplied)
16. Reading of the clause 4 of the Order shows that it prescribes a
procedure for conducting an enquiry pending a proposed action of
suspension/cancellation. The proviso stipulates that where pending
consideration of any action, if there is any necessity to suspend the
authorisation, the suspension shall not exceed three months.
17. In view of the fact that the statutory period of three months has
already expired from the date of issuance of Suspension Order dated
29.10.2016 on this technical ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to
relief of setting aside of the suspension order. Reference may be had
to the judgment in M/s. Ajit Kapoor Store (Supra).
18. In view of the above, the suspension order dated 29.10.2016 is
set aside. It is clarified that this Court has not interdicted the show-
cause notice issued to the petitioner. The Respondents are at liberty to
conclude the proceedings consequent to the Show Cause Notice in
accordance with law.
19. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
20. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 17, 2017
'Sn'
