Madan Lal Pawan Kumar v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

G.S. SISTANI, J. JANUARY 08, 2014 'ssn'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1095/2008 & 2146/2008 % Judgment delivered on 08.01.2014 M/S.MADAN LAL PAWAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Kishan Nautiyal, Advocate versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.S.D. Salwan and Ms.Latika Dutta, Advs CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI G.S.SISTANI (ORAL) 1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present petition is set down for final hearing. Necessary facts for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner, M/s.Madan Lal Pawan Kumar was issued a licence (licence No.1783/77) for distribution of kerosene oil. The said Kerosene Oil Depot (KOD) is situated at Block No.6/499, Khichripur, Delhi under circle 38. The petitioner firm is a licence holder for distribution of kerosene oil since 1977, a copy of the licence has been placed on record. On 28.04.1995 an inspection staff of the respondent came on a routine inspection to the depot of the petitioner firm. At that time, the father of the present proprietor, late Sh.Madan Lal was running the kerosene oil depot. Upon inspection of the depot, on account of allegation of shortage of 1233 litres of kerosene oil for the period 1.4.1995 to 28.4.1995, an FIR was registered. On 07.06.1995 the Assistant Commissioner (East) suspended the licence of M/s.Madan Lal Pawan Kumar on the basis of the said report. On 16.08.1995, Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the materials placed on record, revoked the order of suspension and imposed a penalty of forfeiture of the security amount on the ground that actual shortage of kerosene oil was 68 litres, which was well within the permissible limit and not on the higher side. 2. In the meanwhile in the proceedings initiated upon filing of the FIR for prosecution of the offences under the Delhi Kerosene Oil (Export and Price) Control Order 1962, the Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 03.04.2001 convicted the father of the present proprietor and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and also imposed fine of Rs.2,000/-. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that even after conviction, the father of the present proprietor of the petitioner firm continued to run the Kerosene Oil Depot, till 24.02.2006. Sh.Madan Lal (previous proprietor of the petitioner firm) expired on 24.2.2006. In June, 2006 the present proprietor of petitioner firm applied for change of name of proprietor in the licence of Kerosene Oil Depot, due to his father's death. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 13.06.2006 allowed the change of name and the present proprietor of the petitioner firm was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards security of the Kerosene Oil Depot. It is only on 17.08.2007 that a show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, as to why authorization may not be cancelled under clause 6 (3) of the Delhi Kerosene Oil (Export and Price) Control Order 1962. Reply to the show cause notice was filed on 30.08.2007. Respondents being dissatisfied with the reply so received passed an order dated 01.09.2007, cancelled the licence of the present proprietor. The appeal filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed. 4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the act of the respondents of cancelling the licence of KOD after such a long period is unjustified, in light of the fact that the respondents had earlier in 2006 allowed the change of the proprietor's name. It is also submitted that no action survives against the present proprietor, as the same is stale and the act of the previous proprietor stands condoned, as the show cause notice was issued after a gap of more than 6 years and during this period the licence was renewed from time to time, moreover in the name of the present proprietor as well. The second argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that once the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) vide its ord