Full Judgment Text
1.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 772/2009
th
Date of decision: 11 November, 2009
DAYA KOD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anil Panwar, Advocate.
versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Jyoti Singh & Mr. Amandeep Joshi,
Advocates for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
O R D E R
1. The petitioner’s licence to sell kerosene oil under the Delhi Kerosene Oil
(Export & Price) Control Order, 1962 has been cancelled on the basis of surprise
check carried out by the Enforcement Branch of the Government of NCT of Delhi
th
on 13 December, 2005. The security deposit has also been forfeited.
th
2. Checking by the Enforcement Branch on 13 December, 2005 at the shop
of the petitioner is not denied. As per the inspection report, the petitioner had
rd
received 1615 litres of kerosene oil upto 23 November, 2005 and only 245 litres
of kerosene oil were found by the enforcement team. The petitioner was
accordingly required to account for the said shortfall of 1370 litres of kerosene oil,
which were meant to be distributed under the Public Distribution System.
3. The stand taken by the petitioner is that he had applied for medical leave to
W.P. (C) No. 772/2009 Page 1
close the fair price shop and the said application was allowed/sanctioned by letter
nd
dated 22 November, 2005. Sanction of the said medical leave/closer does not,
however, account for the shortfall of 1370 litres of kerosene oil. It is an admitted
nd
position that the petitioner had received 1615 litres of kerosene oil upto 22
November, 2005 and was required to account for the same as only 245 litres
kerosene oil was found at the time at the time of inspection by the enforcement
team. The Commissioner (Food and Supplies), Government of NCT of Delhi in
th
her order dated 11 July, 2007 has pointed out that the records from FSO (Fuel
Siding) were called and it was verified that the petitioner had received 1300 litres,
th th
1000 litres and 1650 litres of kerosene oil on 8 November, 2005, 9 November,
nd
2005 and 22 November, 2005 respectively. She has also recorded that
signatures of the appellant are available on the receipt provided by the concerned
SKO agent and the same do not appear to be forged as claimed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a letter, which was allegedly
th
served in the office of the Commissioner, Department of Food and Supplies on 5
December, 2005. It is difficult to rely upon the said letter as no receipt number is
mentioned. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner would have allowed the
sons of his salesman to take away keys of his shop. It is admitted that the
petitioner did not take criminal or civil action. This contention is an afterthought.
5. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition
and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NOVEMBER 11, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 772/2009 Page 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 772/2009
th
Date of decision: 11 November, 2009
DAYA KOD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anil Panwar, Advocate.
versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Jyoti Singh & Mr. Amandeep Joshi,
Advocates for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
O R D E R
1. The petitioner’s licence to sell kerosene oil under the Delhi Kerosene Oil
(Export & Price) Control Order, 1962 has been cancelled on the basis of surprise
check carried out by the Enforcement Branch of the Government of NCT of Delhi
th
on 13 December, 2005. The security deposit has also been forfeited.
th
2. Checking by the Enforcement Branch on 13 December, 2005 at the shop
of the petitioner is not denied. As per the inspection report, the petitioner had
rd
received 1615 litres of kerosene oil upto 23 November, 2005 and only 245 litres
of kerosene oil were found by the enforcement team. The petitioner was
accordingly required to account for the said shortfall of 1370 litres of kerosene oil,
which were meant to be distributed under the Public Distribution System.
3. The stand taken by the petitioner is that he had applied for medical leave to
W.P. (C) No. 772/2009 Page 1
close the fair price shop and the said application was allowed/sanctioned by letter
nd
dated 22 November, 2005. Sanction of the said medical leave/closer does not,
however, account for the shortfall of 1370 litres of kerosene oil. It is an admitted
nd
position that the petitioner had received 1615 litres of kerosene oil upto 22
November, 2005 and was required to account for the same as only 245 litres
kerosene oil was found at the time at the time of inspection by the enforcement
team. The Commissioner (Food and Supplies), Government of NCT of Delhi in
th
her order dated 11 July, 2007 has pointed out that the records from FSO (Fuel
Siding) were called and it was verified that the petitioner had received 1300 litres,
th th
1000 litres and 1650 litres of kerosene oil on 8 November, 2005, 9 November,
nd
2005 and 22 November, 2005 respectively. She has also recorded that
signatures of the appellant are available on the receipt provided by the concerned
SKO agent and the same do not appear to be forged as claimed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a letter, which was allegedly
th
served in the office of the Commissioner, Department of Food and Supplies on 5
December, 2005. It is difficult to rely upon the said letter as no receipt number is
mentioned. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner would have allowed the
sons of his salesman to take away keys of his shop. It is admitted that the
petitioner did not take criminal or civil action. This contention is an afterthought.
5. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition
and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NOVEMBER 11, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 772/2009 Page 2