Om Sai Ram Store v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

2. Since the licence was not issued to the petitioner, despite his being found eligible by the Screening Committee, he filed W.P.(C) NO. 808/2009, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2010. In the counter-affidavit filed in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents relied upon a circular dated 30.05.2008 deciding to freeze the number of Fair Price Shops and Kerosene Oil Depots on the ground that considering the prescribed norms, 561 FPS and 1144 Kerosene Oil Depots were already in excess. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that as and when situation changes and the aforesaid circular is modified or withdrawn, the case of the petitioner can be considered.

3. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected vide order dated 05.01.2011. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said rejection order dated 05.01.2011. In the appeal, the Special Commissioner (North East) remanded the matter back to respondent NO. 4 Assistant Commissioner (North East). This was followed by interview letters being issued to three eligible candidates, including the petitioner, to appear before the Selection Board on 22.02.2012. The Selection Board recommended allotment of FPS licence to the petitioner. However, despite that recommendation, the petitioner was informed vide order dated 17.08.2012 that the Higher Authority had decided to readvertise as three out of the two short-listed candidates were found to be non-existent at the time of the final allotment. Being aggrieved from the said communication, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- “a. quash the impugned communication dated 17.8.2012 with simultaneous direction to the respondents for allotment of license of the FPS under general category against the vacancy of FPS notified on 19.9.2007 in the area of Meet Nagar, Delhi Circle No.46 (now circle number 68) in the light of the decision dated 22.2.2012 of Selection Board in favour of the petitioner; b. restrain the respondents from renotification/ re-advertising the above vacancy.”

4. In their counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated that the shop of the petitioner was found partitioned in two parts and therefore, he does not fulfil the essential requirement of being in possession of the business premises. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the son of the owner of the said premises had given in writing that he was not willing to give the premises on rent. According to the respondents, it was on this ground that they decided to re-advertise the aforesaid allotment. It would, therefore, be seen that there were two objections to grant of FPS licence to the petitioner, the first being that he was not in possession of business premises, where FPS was sought to be run and the other that he being the sole candidate, the guidelines framed by the Department necessitated re- advertisement of FPS licence.

5. A perusal of the order dated 22.06.2011, passed by Special Commissioner (North East) would show that the respondents had agreed before the Appellate Authority that business premises in possession of the petitioner and had not been divided into two portions. It was further admitted before the Appellate Authority that the son of the land owner was not in possession of the shop in question. Vide order dated 14.05.2013, this Court, after noticing the submission of the respondents that the only objection to allotment of FPS to the petitioner was his not being in possession of the business premises, in respect of which address was supplied by him, directed the petitioner to file an affidavit stating therein that the premises in question, i.e., A-86, Meet Nagar, Delhi was entirely in his possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he had filed the aforesaid affidavit vide diary NO. 84779 on 27.05.2013. However, the said affidavit seems to have misplaced by the Registry and is not on record. The learned counsel undertakes to file another affidavit within three days from today. In order to put this issue beyond any pale of controversy, I direct the concerned Assistant Commissioner to carry out an inspection of the aforesaid shop to verify whether the petitioner is in its sole possession or not. Such inspection shall be carried out within two weeks from today.

6. As regards the contention that the guidelines framed by the respondents necessitated advertisement of the FPS licence, I find no merit in the contention. The guidelines, on which reliance is placed by the respondents, to the extent it is relied upon, reads as under:- “In cases where no application has been received against the notified vacancy or none of the application is found eligible for allotment and/or the selection board has decided for re-notification of the vacancy, the vacancy will be renotified with the approval of the Area Deputy Commissioner.” It would thus be seen that the aforesaid clause would apply where no application is received against a notified vacancy or where none of the applicants is found eligible for allotment. Admittedly, three persons, including the petitioner had applied for the notified vacancy though two of them were later found to be non-existent and the petitioner was found eligible for allotment. Therefore, the aforesaid guideline would not apply in his case.

7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant FPS licence to the petitioner, subject to his completing the formalities in this regard and further subject to his being found during inspection by the Assistant Commissioner to be in sole possession of Shop No A-86, Meet Nagar, Delhi. The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Dasti under the signature of Court Master.

OCTOBER 08, 2013 V.K. JAIN, J. BG