SURESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF FOLLOWED & SETC
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
Commissioner Of Followed And Setc
Click here to view full judgement.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT -
(1.) THE petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the orders of the respondents cancelling the fair price shop license issued to him in terms of their
(2.) THE admitted brief facts are that the petitioner was issued the FPS license initially in 1979, for Majlis Park. He continued to operate the
license and was engaged in the sale of controlled commodities, offered
through the Public Distribution System till 2000. From 25.7.2000 to
25.1.2001 the petitioner alleges that he was seriously ill and therefore unable to operate the license or offer PDS commodities for sale to the
public. He was issued a show cause notice calling him upon to reply as to
why he has not deposited the drafts. The drafts, in accordance with the
scheme, were to be paid to the authorities during that period.
The petitioner replied on 28.1.2001 claiming that he had been suffering from Typhoid. On 11.3.2003 a show cause notice was issued
calling upon him as to why the license ought not to be cancelled. This
was replied to and yet again another show cause notice was issued on
5.1.2005 by the respondent. This ultimately resulted in the order of the Assistant Commissioner, cancelling the license on 26.5.2005.
3a. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, who by his impugned order dated 3.11.2005 rejected it. The Commissioner reasoned that the petitioner's explanation for not operating the license for six months' period between 25.7.2000 to 25.1.2001 was unsatisfactory since he claimed illness for the first time after receipt of show cause notice. More importantly, the Commissioner, after considering the materials and contentions formed the opinion that the petitioner has not operated the Public Distribution System for more than 5 years, although he had deposited the enhanced fee, by paying Rs. 4500/-.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the decisions of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the the Commissioner are arbitrary and
unreasonable. The two orders did not duly consider the petitioner's
illness and the fact that after he recovered, he deposited the amount in
time but was prevented from lifting the stocks.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.