$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th August, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 6010/2011, CM No.12142/2011 (for stay) & CM
No.12145/2011 (for direction)
M/S BHARAT STORES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal & Mr. Manoj
Kumar, Advocates.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navralin Choudhary, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4 th August, 2011 of
the Assistant Commissioner (North), Department of Food, Supplies &
Consumer Affairs, Govt. of Delhi cancelling the authorization earlier
granted to the petitioner for running/operating a fair price shop.
WP(C) 6010/2011 Page 1 of 5
2. Admittedly, the said order is appealable before the Additional
Commissioner.
3. The petitioner has however preferred this petition for the reason of the
Assistant Commissioner, in the order impugned in this petition having
mentioned that the “administrative approval of Additional Commissioner
(North) has been obtained”. It is the contention of the counsel for the
petitioner that the Appellate Authority having already granted the
administrative approval for the order of the Assistant Commissioner, has
denuded himself from the right to hear the appeal and thus the only remedy
available to the petitioner is by way of this petition.
4. I am of the opinion that mere recording by the Assistant
Commissioner of the fact that administrative approval had been obtained
from the superior administrative authority would not interfere with the
hearing of the appeal. This Bench for the last over one month has come
across several orders of the Additional Commissioner setting aside the
orders of the Assistant Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner while
hearing the appeal exercises quasi judicial powers and is not to be
influenced by the administrative approval if any given to the orders
WP(C) 6010/2011 Page 2 of 5
impugned before him/her.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in P.K. Gupta v. Gold Craft
Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. 1996(37) DRJ 69 held that a
matter may come up before the authority, in that case Registrar Co-operative
Societies, in two jurisdictions; one, of appeal; the other, of approval. In
appeal, the entire subject matter of controversy stands reopened before the
appellate authority, appeal is a vested right, parties have to be heard. While
approval is an administrative act in which no one can claim a right of
hearing or participation. The Supreme Court in Vijayadevi Navalkishore
Bhartia v. Land Acquisition Officer (2003) 5 SCC 83 held that approval is
not an appellate function. As distinct therefrom, the Supreme Court in
Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division & Appeals, Assam AIR
1958 SC 398 has held that where a right is vested in an authority to hear
appeals, it becomes its duty to hear judicially, i.e., to say, in an objective
manner, impartially and after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties
concerned to place their cases before it. Halsbury’s Laws of England were
relied upon by the Apex Court to hold that when an administrative body in
arriving at its decision has at no stage any form of lis before it, it cannot be
WP(C) 6010/2011 Page 3 of 5
said that it is under a duty at any time to act judicially. Lord Haldane in
Local Government Board v. Arlidge [1915] A.C. 120 was quoted to hold
that those on whom duty to decide appeal is imposed have to act judicially,
deal with the questions raised without bias and must give opportunity to all
parties to present their case.
6. The counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the appeals and
the applications for stay remain pending before the Additional
Commissioner for long and has sought a direction for disposal thereof in a
time bound manner.
7. The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice has been
heard on the aforesaid aspect.
8. The writ petition is therefore disposed of as not maintainable owing to
the alternative remedy of appeal being available to the petitioner and with
liberty to the petitioner to avail thereof. The Additional Commissioner is
directed to dispose of, if not the entire appeal, at least the application for
interim relief within four weeks of the appeal being preferred and the appeal
latest within eight weeks from the date of filing.
WP(C) 6010/2011 Page 4 of 5
No order as to costs.
Copy of this order be given Dasti.
CM Nos.12143-44/2011 (both for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AUGUST 19, 2011
bs
WP(C) 6010/2011 Page 5 of 5