M/S Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

iii. Writ of Mandamus be issued directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to stay the implementation of the impugned suspension order dated 05.04.2021 as well as impugned order dated 06.03.2021 passed by Respondent no.3 respectively; AND

¶15

iv. Respondent no. 2 and 3 be directed to restore the FPS License no. 7227, allotted to M/S Manoj Kumar Misha FPS No. 7227 and allow the petitioner to run the said FPS;

¶16

v. Any other appropriate direction or order may also be passed in favor of the petitioner herein.

¶17

The petitioner is one Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra running a Fair Price Shop. Respondents are the Government departments.

¶18

The petition assails the suspension order dated 05.04.2021 ( hereinafter “Impugned Suspension Order”) and shifting order dated

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2026 at 12:36:00

¶21

06.03.2021 ( hereinafter “Impugned Shifting Order”) passed by respondent no. 3 – Asstt. Commissioner.

¶22

The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner has been running Fair Price Shop since 1987. On 05.10.2020, the petitioner applied for permanent shifting of the Fair Price Shop from 5/51, Khichripur Market, Delhi-110091 to 4/51, Khichripur, Delhi-11009. Vide order dated 23.01.2021 the application for shifting of Fair Price Shop was allowed by respondent no. 3 – Asstt. Commissioner with approval of respondent no. 2 – Commissioner. Pursuant to the said approval, the petitioner started functioning from the said premises.

¶23

Thereafter, vide impugned shifting order, respondent no. 3 cancelled the earlier permission for permanent shifting and directed the petitioner to arrange alternate premises. Subsequently vide impugned suspension order, the respondent no.3 – Asstt. Commissioner, suspended the license for the Fair Price Shop.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that, he thereafter, proposed alternate premises including at D67/1, Gali No-4, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi and subsequently at 52-A, Gali No.1, Village Khichripur, Delhi. 7. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the cancellation of the shifting permission and consequent suspension of the Fair Price Shop licence vide order dated 05.04.2021, allegedly without affording any opportunity of hearing and despite submission of alternate premises.

¶25

The material portion of the impugned suspension order is extracted as under:

¶26

“And whereas the licensee proposed another premises at D.67/1, Gate No. 4, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi which was

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2026 at 12:36:00

¶29

approved by the Competent Authority but instead of shifting the premises to approved location, the licensee has proposed another premises at 52-A, Gali No.1 village Khirchriur. The said premises cannot cater to the beneficiaries arrange.”

¶30

A bare perusal of the aforesaid would indicate that on petitioner’s proposal, premises at D67/1, Gali No-4, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi, was approved however, instead of shifting the premises to approved location, the petitioner had shifted the shop to another premises at 52-A, Gali No.1, Village Khichripur, Delhi. According to the respondents, the said alternate premises was found to be unsuitable and incapable of adequately catering to the beneficiaries attached to the Fair Price Shop.

¶31

Therefore, by way of the impugned orders, the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop was placed under suspension and notice for cancellation was issued. The impugned orders came to be stayed by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2021. The relevant portion of the interim order is extracted as under:

¶32

“Considering the submission made, there shall be a stay on the Impugned Correspondence dated 05.04.2021 to the extent that it suspends the license of the petitioner till the next date of hearing.”

¶33

It appears that after the year 2021, there have been substantial developments in terms of public distribution scheme. There also appears to have been a change in the applicable policies, and at present, the issue relating to shifting of the location from its existing place to another location may require reconsideration by the department in light of the prevailing framework.

¶34

If the petitioner, by virtue of the interim order, has continued to operate from the present location and there is no violation of any of the

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2026 at 12:36:00

¶37

applicable terms and conditions, the impugned suspension order, at this stage, may not warrant enforcement. Instead, liberty is granted to the respondents to consider the entire facts and circumstances of the case and to take a fresh decision, if so advised.

¶38

With these observations, the impugned order stands set aside. All rights and contentions are left open.

¶39

Accordingly, the petition with all pending applications stands disposed of.

¶40

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶41

APRIL 28, 2026/SH/ss

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2026 at 12:36:00

M/S Manoj Kumar Mishra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Manoj Kumar Mishra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Play Limited Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

Deepak Kumar Jha Vs Uco Bank and Ors.

Soniya Vs Bsf through Its Director General and Ors.

Lawrence Bishnoi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr Divesh Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ns Trading Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

Ms Dermaclinix the Complete Skin and Hair Solution Center Vs Additional Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi East

Chander Mohan and Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Lawrence Bishnoi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ca Abraham Zachariah Vs Appellate Authority Icai and Ors.

Nupower Wind Farms Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Cpl Chetan Gautam Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Satya Prakash Ravidas Vs the Registrar of Societies & Anr.