HARBIR SINGH Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Food and Supplies) whereby the petitioner's kerosene oil depot licence was cancelled.

(2.) The facts are that on 1.12.1999 the vacancy for a kerosene oil depot was notified in Circle 47, Ashok Nagar, Delhi. The last date for making applications was 15.12.1999. The petitioner applied on 15.12.1999. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Rama Devi and Panchal were also co applicants. However, on 19.01.2001, the licence was issued to the petitioner for running his KOD at E-30, Ashok Nagar, (Circle 47) Delhi. Since the applications of respondent Nos 4 and 5 were rejected and the same was communicated to them by a letter dated 22.01.2001, they filed appeals under the provisions of the Delhi Kerosene Oil (Export and Price) Control Order, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said ?Control Order?). The appeals of the respondent Nos 4 and 5 were rejected. However, the case of the grant of licence to the petitioner was also considered by the Commissioner (Food and Supplies) and by virtue of the said order dated 09.05.2001, the licence granted to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for the grant of licence on the date of his application i.e., on 15.12.1999. The reason given for the cancellation of the petitioner's licence was that on that date the petitioner had two shutters in his shop when the rule required that there should have been only one shutter. A supplemental reason was also indicated in the order and that was that the graduation certificate given by the petitioner was suspect.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire case hinges upon the statement of Smt Sheela Devi who is the land lady of the subject premises. Apparently, she had stated that on 16.12.1999 an inspection was carried out on the part of the Food and Supplies Department at 10.55 a.m. and at that point of time there was only one shutter as the other shutter had been closed and only 6 inches gap remained to be covered up. As per the statement, it appears that the second shutter was closed on 16.12.1999. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the inspection was carried out at 10.55 in the morning, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the work for closing the shutter had commenced on 15.12.1999 itself and perhaps been completed on that date barring 6 inches which remained to be closed as noted by Smt Sheela Devi.