S.K.Mahajan, J - (1.) The respondents issued a notification for filling up the vacancy of the Kerosene Oil Depot in Circle 25. In terms of the rules framed by the respondents, vacancy can only be filled by a person who is resident of the circle where the vacancy had arisen. Petitioner applied for being allotted the licence of the Kerosene Oil Depot in Circle 25. The Selection Board, after interviewing the candidates had appeared to have recommended the Kerosene Oil Depot to be allotted to the petitioner. Petitioner requested for depositing the security amount so as to start the depot, however, the respondents did not permit him to deposit the security amount and the oil depot was not allotted to him, Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Food and Supplies with a prayer to allot to him the Kerosene Oil Depot in Circle 25. This appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Food and Supplies on 23/02/2000. Petitioner filed an application on 2/05/2000 seeking review of the order dated 23/02/2000 passed by the Commissioner, Food and Supplies. This application was dismissed by the Commissioner on 4/07/2000. It was held by the Commissioner that the name of the petitioner was found in the consumer card issued in the name of his father, Sh. Gyanender Singh from the office of the Food and Supplies in Circle 54 and simultaneously, his name also appeared in the consumer card issued in the name of his mother in Circle 25 as well. The ration card in the name of his mother was bifurcated and a new card was issued to the petitioner in Circle 25 on 23/06/1998. The consumer card of Sh. Gyanender Singh, father of the petitioner was surrendered in Circle 54 on 1 1/11/1999 after these facts were brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner by one of the competing candidate. The Commissioner was, therefore, of the view that obtaining two ration cards was serious contravention of the Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order of 1981 made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. It was held that the name of the petitioner was reflected in two different ration cardssimultaneously for the period from 23/06/1998 to llth November, 1999 and if the applicant was found to have filed a false declaration leading to the issue of consumer card on 23/06/1998, he was liable to be proceeded against according to law. The Commissioner, Food and Supplies, therefore, dismissed the application with direction to the Assistant Commissioner, North-West to take action in accordance with law and departmental procedures.
(2.) Petitioner, in my view appears, to have got his name included in two ration cards issued in two different circles so as to keep his options open for applying for KOD licence in any of the two circles wherever a vacancy may arise. This, in my opinion disentitled him to be allotted Kerosene Oil Depot in any of the two circles. Since the order of the Commissioner/ Food and Supplies is based on sufficient material before him no case is made out by the petitioner for interference with this order nor there is any infirmity in the order of Commissioner, Food and Supplies rejecting the application of the petitioner.
(3.) Though it is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the ration card issued in Circle 54 was forged, however, firstly, this Court is unable to agree with the petitioner that document issued by the Government can be a forged document and secondly even assuming that this ration card was prepared at the instance of some other person, it is not for this Court to make enquiries into these questions as to whether the ration card was prepared at the instance of any other person with a view to harm the petitioner as that is not the scope of enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in this writ petition.;