BRIJ KOD Vs. COMMISSIONER FOOD AND SUPPLIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 28th September, 2001 passed by the Commissioner, Food and Supplies, Government of NCTof Delhi in Appeal No. 50/01 which was preferred by the petitioner. It is not the first time that the petitioner has approached this Court. Earlier the Commissioner, Food and Supplies had passed order dated 23rd June, 2000 against which petitioner had preferred CWP No. 3782/2000. It may be mentioned at this stage that petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5 had filed appeals against rejection of their applications for grant of licence to run kerosene oil depot in the notified area. By impugned order dated 23rd June, 2000 both these appeals were dismissed. However, while dismissing the appeal of respondent No. 5, the Commissioner passed an order granting him additional licence. In the aforesaid CWP No. 3782/2000 apart from challenging order on the ground that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, another contention raised by the petitioner was that no such power lay with the Commissioner to grant additional licence.

(2.) This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 27th August, 2001 wherein contention regarding power of the Commissioner to grant such additional licence was noted. However, this contention was not dealt with by this Court as this writ petition was allowed on the second ground, namely, impugned order dated 23rd June, 2000 passed by the Commissioner was non-speaking order and therefore matter was remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication with a reasoned order. The relevant observations in order dated 27th August, 2001 allowing the writ petition in the aforesaid terms are to be the following effect:

(3.) After the remand of the case to the Commissioner, Food and Supplies, the Commissioner heard both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 and has passed impugned order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned order however shows two infirmities which are: (a) Contention of the petitioner in respect of power of the Commissioner to grant additional licence has neither been adverted to nor decided. (b) The second infirmity is more serious. As noted above, this Court in its order dated 27th September, 2001 had quashed the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2000 on the ground that no reasons whatsoever were recorded by the Commissioner while dismissing the petitioner's appeal. Inspite of this categorical finding which was not challenged by the respondents and in view thereof matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has attempted to justify earlier order by observing that full reasons were given in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner even by an earlier order and the observations to that effect are as under: