36 + *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(C)No.8117/2008 M/5 MAHENDER KUMAR DAMODAR KUMAR Through Petitioner Mr. Pardeep Gupta Adv. with Mr. Suresh Bharti Adv. for the petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents Through Ms. Purbali Bora Adv. for Ms. Aruna TikkuAdv. for the respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI WP(C)No.8117/2008 ORDER %11.12.2008 1. The present petition is directed against the suspension order cum show cause notice dated 24.01.2008 issued by the respondents to the petitioner. The petitioner prays for WP(C)No.Blll/2008 Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:09.07.2024 15:43:13 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 3 issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ directing the respondents to quash the said suspension order cum show cause notice. 2. The facts germane to this petition may first be noticed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on • 12.01.1981, respondent no. 1 (Government of NCT of Delhi, Ministry of Food and Supply) notified the Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1981 and which contained rules for issuance of a license for running a 'fair price shop'. Under the said Order, the petitioner was issued license no. 6916 on 26.08.1985. The learned counsel argues that for the past more than twenty three years the petitioner has been diligently running his business. The license was renewed by the respondents from time to time and was last renewed upto 16.06.2009, for 32/152, Gali no. 6, Bhikam Singh Colony, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi in circle no. 43. WP(C)No.8117!2008 Page 2 of 5 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the inspection dated 23.01.2008, the respondent allegedly found some irregularities and vide order dated 24.01.2008, a suspension order cum show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The only ground which is urged before this court today is that as per Regulation 4 of the Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1981 the maximum time period of suspension is three months whereas in the case of the petitioner the time period of suspension has exceeded well beyond ten months. That the suspension order which would have expired on 24.04.2008, has still not been revoked by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the action of the respondent is arbitrary and goes against the basic tenets of natural justice. 4. Notice in this matter was issued, but no reply has been filed. WP(C)No.Blll/2008 Page 3 of 5 5. After going through the record of this case, I am of the considered view that the respondent no. 2 was well within his rights to pass an order of suspension, however, as per the proviso to Regulation 4 of Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1981 the period of suspension can not exceed three months. The relevant portion of the said Regulation 4 is reproduced herein below: "4. Suspension/cancellation of authorization: **** Provided further that if the authorization is under consideration for action and it is necessary to suspend it pending enquiry the provisions contained in the foregoing proviso shall not apply subject to the condition that the period of such suspension shall not exceed three months." Admittedly, the license of the petitioner was suspended on 24.01.08. Counsel for the petitioner further relies upon an order passed by the single judge of this court in writ petition No. 201 of 2006. WP(C)No.8117!2008 Page 4 of 5 r 6. In light of the above, continuing suspension of the said 'fair price shop' of the petitioner is well beyond the maximum time period of three months as prescribed under Regulation 4 of the Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1981. Thus the present petition is allowed. The order of suspension dated 24.01.2008 is set aside. Taking into consideration the above reasons, however, it is made clear that any proceedings arising out of the show cause notice of the same date shall continue. The petitioner will cooperate in the early disposal of the proceedings. 7. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of. 8. Dasti. December 11, 2008 55 WP(C)No.8117!2008 G.S. SISTANI, J. Page 5 of 5