Jitender Kumar v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi &Ors

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

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8608/2007 & CM.No.16224/2007 % Judgment delivered on 08.01.2014 JITENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.A. Mangla, 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 in the year 1981 authorization was issued in favour of mother of the petitioner (Mrs.Asharfi Devi) by the department of Food and Supplies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for operating a Fair Price Shop (FPS). In the year 1984 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent alleging some variation in the essential commodities. The Deputy Commissioner (South), adjudicated upon the allegations of irregularities and imposed a penalty of forfeiture of the security deposit. 2. Subsequently in the year 1992 cognizance was taken by the Special Court, Delhi under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and a fine of Rs.2,000/- was imposed on the earlier proprietor. On 28.01.1994 a show cause notice was issued on the ground that an order of conviction had been passed against the earlier proprietor (Mrs.Asharfi Devi), hence, petitioner was called upon to show as to why authorization should not be cancelled. Reply to this show cause notice was filed on 16.12.1994, however, no order was passed by the respondents. At the request of the petitioner, authorization of the Fair Price Shop was renewed in the name of present petitioner, Mr.Jitender Kumar in the year 2006. Mr.Jitender Kumar thereafter received a show cause notice on 18.08.2007 citing conviction of the earlier proprietor, proposing cancellation of the licence and forfeiture of the security deposit. On 18.09.2007 a reply to the show cause notice was issued. However, without affording any opportunity of hearing, the authorization of running the Fair Price Shop was cancelled on 27.10.2007. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice upon which the cancellation order had been passed was highly belated and that too for the offence which was committed in the year 1984 and for which the Deputy Commissioner (South) had already imposed penalty of forfeiture of security amount. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that in any case the offence was not committed by the present petitioner, and thus, the petitioner cannot be penalized for an offence committed by his predecessor. 4. Even otherwise it is contended that the order of conviction was passed as far back as in the year 1992 and the fine imposed also stands deposited. It is submitted that in the year 2006 a fresh authorization was granted in the name of present petitioner, hence, present petitioner, cannot be made to suffer on account of any lapse on the part of the earlier proprietor. 5. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise once the respondents had issued show cause notice in the year 1984 and after due hearing a penalty of forfeiture of security amount was imposed, petitioner cannot be punished twice for the same offence. The second argument of counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notice dated 18.8.2007 and cancellation order dated 27.10.20007 are liable to be quashed, as firstly the action initiated has become stale; and secondly, violation, if any, of the petitioner stands condoned as the licence was renewed subsequently. 6. While counsel for the respondent submits that in addition to the administrative action, respondents were entitled to take action as per Clause 7 of the 1981 Order dated 12.01.1981, i.e. Delhi Specified Articles (Regulations of Distribution) Order, 1981 which reads as follows, and submits that once the proprietor had committed breach and she was convicted the respondents were bound to cancel the licence of the petitioner: