M/S. BANSL STORE v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.

2. It would thus be seen that the Administrator or Deputy Commissioner is competent to amend, suspend or rescind, the authorization, after making appropriate enquiries, in terms of sub-clause (1) of clause 4, extracted above. However, he must necessarily give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned party in terms of the first proviso to the aforesaid order. If, however, in a particular case, the Administrator or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, deems it necessary to suspend the authorization pending enquiry contemplated under sub-clause (1) of clause 4, he can suspend such authorization, without giving an opportunity of hearing for the purpose of such suspension. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid clause would mean that if the Administrator or the Deputy Commissioner, as to the case may be, seeks to amend, suspend or rescind the authorization, he will give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned in terms of the first proviso, but in a case where he also deems it necessary to suspend the authorization pending such enquiry, he may do so for a limited period of three months from the date on which the suspension is ordered. He need not give an opportunity of hearing before ordering suspension, in view of the second proviso to the order. In case, the Administrator of the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, takes a final decision on amending, suspending or rescinding the authorization, before expiry of the aforesaid period of three months, the matter has to thereafter be dealt with in terms of the final order passed by him. If suspension order does not specify the period of suspension of the authorization and no final order on the proposed amendment, suspension or rescission is taken, within a period of three months from the date on which the authorization was suspended, such authorization automatically revives on expiry of the aforesaid period of three months. For this purpose, the period of three months shall compute from the date on which the authorization was suspended. I also agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be necessary for the Administrator or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, while exercising his power under the second proviso has to form an opinion and record it in his order that it is necessary to suspend the authorization pending enquiry contemplated under the said order.

3. In the case before this Court, the authorization came to be suspended on 21.08.2013. In case a final decision in the matter is taken by the concerned officer within three months from the date on which the authorization was suspended, further consequences in the matter would flow only in terms of the final order passed by the officer. If, however, he does not pass a final order within a period of three months from the date of suspension, order suspending the authorization shall get revived immediately on expiry of three months, computed from the date of suspension order. It is made clear that the concerned officer can continue with enquiry even after expiry of three months from the date of suspension and proceed to pass a final order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the person concerned and the only effect of his not being able to pass a final order within three months, from the date of suspension would be automatic revival of authorization, on expiry of three months from the date of suspension. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master. V.K. JAIN, J NOVEMBER 11, 2013 BG