Bharat Store v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors

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

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8446/2007 % Judgment delivered on 08.01.2014 BHARAT STORE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.R.P. Luthra, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT 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 a partnership firm (Smt.Saroj Bala and Mr.Vinod Kumar, as its partners) under the name of M/s.Bharat Store was carrying on business. A licence to run a Fair Price Shop was granted to M/s.Bharat Store in the year 1987. This licence stood renewed from time to time till 16.07.2009. On 02.08.1988 a raid was conducted on the premises of the petitioner on the basis of alleged shortage of 9.4 kg. of wheat and 1.084 kg. of sugar and FIR No.193/1988 was registered with the Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi under sections 7/10/55 of the Essential Commodities Act. Smt. Saroj Bala, Mr.Vinod Kumar and one Mr.Mool Chand, an employee of the petitioner firm, were charged in the aforesaid FIR. After conclusion of the trial, Ms.Saroj Bala was acquitted due to lack of evidence vide judgment dated 23.12.1995, although Mr.Vinod Kumar and Mr.Mool Chand were convicted. Subsequently Mr.Vinod Kumar resigned from the partnership firm on 07.10.2006 and respondents were informed to this effect and a request was made for change of constitution of M/s.Bharat Store. This request of Smt.Saroj Bala was allowed by an office order dated 09.01.2007. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after a gap of 12 years a show cause notice dated 24.09.2007 was issued to the petitioner on the ground that the holder of authorization of M/s.Bharat Store had been convicted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why authorization may not be cancelled under clause 7 of the Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1981. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a reply to the show cause was filed wherein it was stated that Sh.Vinod Kumar had no concern with the management and affairs of M/s.Bharat Store. The reply filed was not accepted by the respondents and by order dated 31.10.2007, authorization / licence of the petitioner was cancelled. 4. Mr.Salwan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that once the proprietor of the petitioner firm had committed breach for which conviction was awarded, respondents were bound to cancel the licence of the petitioner; hence, the respondents are well within their right to take action in terms of Clause 7 of the 1981 Order dated 12.01.1981, i.e. Delhi Specified Articles (Regulations of Distribution) Order, 1981 which reads as follows: "7. Cancellation of authorization upon Conviction.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this clause where an authorized wholesaler or a fair price shop holder has been convicted by a court of law in respect of contravention of any of the provisions of this Order or any other order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), the Deputy Commissioner may, by order, in writing cancel his authorization forth with : Provided that where such conviction is set aside in appeal or revision the Deputy Commissioner may on application by the person whose authorization has been cancelled re-issue the authorization to such person." 5. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of an inspection, FIR No.193/1988 was registered and after due hearing one of the proprietors (Mr.Vinod Kumar) and Mr.Mool Chand, an employee of the petitioner firm were convicted, hence, the petitioner cannot be punished twice for the same offence. The second argument of counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notice issued and cancellation order passed is liable to be quashed, as firstly the action initiated has become stale; and secondly,