BHARAT STORES Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4 th August, 2011 of the Assistant Commissioner (North), Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of Delhi cancelling the authorization earlier granted to the petitioner for running/operating a fair price shop.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the said order is appealable before the Additional Commissioner.

(3.) THE Division Bench of this Court in P.K. Gupta v. Gold Craft Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. 1996(37) DRJ 69 held that a matter may come up before the authority, in that case Registrar Co-operative Societies, in two jurisdictions; one, of appeal; the other, of approval. In appeal, the entire subject matter of controversy stands reopened before the appellate authority, appeal is a vested right, parties have to be heard. While approval is an administrative act in which no one can claim a right of hearing or participation. THE Supreme Court in Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia v. Land Acquisition Officer (2003) 5 SCC 83 held that approval is not an appellate function. As distinct therefrom, the Supreme Court in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division & Appeals, Assam AIR 1958 SC 398 has held that where a right is vested in an authority to hear appeals, it becomes its duty to hear judicially, i.e., to say, in an objective manner, impartially and after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to place their cases before it. Halsbury's Laws of England were relied upon by the Apex Court to hold that when an administrative body in arriving at its decision has at no stage any form of lis before it, it cannot be said that it is under a duty at any time to act judicially. Lord Haldane in Local Government Board v. Arlidge [1915] A.C. 120 was quoted to hold that those on whom duty to decide appeal is imposed have to act judicially, deal with the questions raised without bias and must give opportunity to all parties to present their case.