Dismissed

M/S Shesh Narayan Shyam Narayan v. the Special Commissioner (Admn), Deptt. of Food & Supplies & Anr.

Delhi HC19 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/467/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged suspension of FPS license and disinvestiture of security deposit due to alleged closure and misbehaviour. Court held disputes of fact prevent writ intervention and dismissed petition allowing appropriate applications.

What did the court decide?

Present writ petition and applications dismissed with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

M/S Shesh Narayan Shyam Narayan Vs the Special… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

#60

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶4

- W.P.(C) 467/2016 & CM APPLs. 1888-1889/2016

¶5

M/S SHESH NARAYAN SHYAM NARAYAN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER (ADMN), DEPTT. OF FOOD & SUPPLIES & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate.

¶8

% Date of Decision: 19^th January, 2016

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶10

J U D G M E N T

¶11

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

¶12

Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 11^th January, 2016 passed by the appellate authority/Special Commissioner, Dept. of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs, GNCTD by virtue of which the petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 3^rd November, 2015 was dismissed. Petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 3^rd November, 2015 passed by the Assist. Commissioner by virtue of which petitioner’s FPS authorisation/license was suspended.

¶13

W.P.(C) 467/2016

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on the basis of the general and fake allegations of closure of shop and misbehaviour by petitioner with FPS card holders, the impugned suspension order was passed. He further states that three ladies whose statements have been relied upon to pass the suspension order have now issued statements that they have no grievance against the petitioner.

¶16

In the impugned order dated 3^rd November, 2015, the Assist. Commissioner has observed as under:-

¶17

“Whereas the proprietor of M/s Shashi Narayan Sharma Narayan, FPS No. 5357, functioning at Village Pillanji, New Delhi was issued a Show Cause Notice vide this office letter of even no. dated 08/10/2015, with direction to submit his explanation in writing as to why action should not be taken against the FPS for violation of Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1981 and other terms and conditions of the authorization. The charges levelled against the FPS in the Show Cause Notice were that during door-to-door verification conducted by the circle FSO and FSI, three ration card holders had complaint that the FPS generally remains closed & misbehaviour to the card holder.

¶18

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶19

Now, therefore, I S. Chakraborty, Asstt. Commissioner (New Delhi), Food Supplies and Consumer Affair Department in exercise of power conferred upon me under Clause 4(1) of Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation & Distribution Order, 1981, do hereby suspend the authorization/license of M/s. Shashi Narayan Shyam Narayan, FPS No. 5357 with immediate effect. The security deposit by the authorization holder is also forfeited to the state under Clause 4(2) of DS (R&D) Order, 1981.”

¶20

In the appeal, the Special Commissioner (Administration) in his order dated 11^th January, 2016 has observed as under:-

¶21

W.P.(C) 467/2016

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

“On perusal of the entire case record, I am of the view that the Appellant is a habitual offender as despite imposing a penalty of Rs. 2500/- by the licensing authority for not adhering to the FPS opening/closing timing o9n 07.07.2015, receipt of similar complaints again establishes the fact that the Appellant could not mend his ways and was opening the FPS at his own whims and fancies, which is grossly against the departmental guidelines. Licensing Authority had given opportunities to the Appellant and the reply of the Appellant was not satisfactory. The complaints had no motive when complaint was filed against the FPS owner which establishes genuineness of the complaint. This is further reinforced through the conduct and reply of the Appellant that he did not try to mend his way despite opportunities given.”

¶24

A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner had been saddled with penalty of Rs.2,500/- in the past due to delay in opening his FPS.

¶25

This Court is also of the view that disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case which cannot be adjudicated upon in writ proceedings inasmuch as the statements of the three ladies referred to in the show cause notice are at variance with the statements now being relied upon by the petitioner.

¶26

Accordingly, present writ petition and applications are dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Rights and contentions of all parties are left open.

¶27

Order dasti.

¶28

MANMOHAN, J

¶29

JANUARY 19, 2016 rn

¶30

W.P.(C) 467/2016

¶31

Page 3 of 3

M/S Shesh Narayan Shyam Narayan v. the Special Commissioner (Admn), Deptt. of Food & Supplies & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shesh Narayan Shyam Narayan v. the Special Commissioner (Admn), Deptt. of Food & Supplies & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A-One Marketing Division Vs Chief Post Master General & Ors.

Cpl Shankar Bhagwan Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jamil Khan & Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner & Ors.

Ashish Srivastava Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

M/S Kallu Ram Jai Kumar Jain Vs Nationa Capital Territory of Delhi& Another

Wasimuddin Vs UOI and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs UOI and Ors.

Md. Abdul Hamid Vs UOI and Ors.

A-One Marketing Division Vs Chief Post Master General & Ors.

Shankar Bandu Savekar Vs Union of India

Dcm Building Office Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs Registrar of Societies New Delhi District and Anr.

M/S. N & R Industreis L.L.C. Vs Directorate General of Foreign Trade & Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Rajeev Kumar Sharma Vs Bar Council of Delhi & Anr.