Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1218 (DEL)

DINESH PRATAP SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2006-07-25

ANIL KUMAR

body2006
ANIL KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has impugned rejection of his application for the allotment of kerosene oil depot at plot No. D-1/460, Bhalswa Punarwas Colony, New delhi and for direction to respondents to conduct the interview of the petitioner for allotment of kerosene oil depot. ( 2 ) THE eligibility for allotment of public distribution system (PDS) outlet was stipulated in the order dated 16th March, 2001 categorically stipulating that the premises should be located on a central point accessible to heavy traffic and preferably in a commercial area on a minimum 15' wide road. The minimum floor area of the premises was prescribed to be 15 sq. mtrs. for fair price shops (FPS) and 12 sq. mtrs. for kerosene oil depot. The length, breadth and height of the premises were also stipulated and they were to be not less than 3 meters each. ( 3 ) THE application of the petitioner for allotment of kerosene oil depot was declined as the measurement of petitioner's premises was found to be, length 3. 8 meters; breadth 2. 80 meters; height 3. 20 meters and the shop is situated on 12' 9? wide road. ( 4 ) THE Commissioner, Fands Department, was competent to relax 10% of dimension in respect to one dimension only. The breadth of the petitioner's shop was less than 3 meters and even after giving 10% relaxation in one dimension the petitioner's shop was not in accordance with the minimum eligibility conditions prescribed by the respondents. The eligibility conditions prescribed minimum floor area of 12 sq. mtrs. and the floor area of the petitioner's shop, considering the length as 3. 8 meters and breadth 2. 80 meters was less than 12 sq. mtrs. The road in front of petitioner's shop is also less than 15' entailing rejection of his application. ( 5 ) WHILE communicating the order dated 30th March, 2006, rejecting the application of the petitioner for allotment of kerosene depot to him, it was also categorically stated that interview letter sent by FSO Circle 55 was issued to him wrongly, as the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum eligibility conditions. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has contended that the area of the shop of the petitioner and of Shri Pratap Singh, whose application for kerosene oil depot has been accepted, are similar. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has contended that the area of the shop of the petitioner and of Shri Pratap Singh, whose application for kerosene oil depot has been accepted, are similar. This is contended by petitioner on the basis of layout plan of the colony. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also refuted the allegations regarding the road on which petitioner's shop is located being less than 15' on the basis of proposed layout plan of the colony. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, Ms. Meera Bhatia, has produced the record of petitioner as well as Mr. Pratap Singh, whose application for kerosene oil depot has been accepted. The inspection was carried out of both the shops and the shop of Mr. Pratap Singh was found to be more suitable and located on a road of 16' width whereas the shop of the petitioner is located on a road of 12' 9? width. The minimum floor area of the petitioner's shop is also less than 12 sq. feet prescribed for allotment of kerosene oil depot. ( 8 ) THIS Court cannot ordinarily interfere in administrative matters since the administrative authorities are specialists in matters relating to the administration. The Court does not have expertise and should ordinarily leave such matters to the discretion of the administrative authorities and may interfere in rare and exceptional cases as the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of administrative authorities unless they are illegal, irrational and suffer from procedural impropriety. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the locations of the shops after due inspection which is apparent from the files produced before me, a decision has been taken by the administrative authorities which can not be termed illegal or irrational. They have exercised their right to chose which of the shop is more suitable, petitioner's or other allottee, without any procedural impropriety and their decision cannot be faulted on the perception of the petitioner that his shop is more suitable for allotment of kerosene oil depot. The decision not to chose the shop of the petitioner can not be termed so irrational or outrageous which will defy logic or perception of a sensible person. The area of the shop of the petitioner's is less than the minimum prescribed so is one of the dimension of the shop. The decision not to chose the shop of the petitioner can not be termed so irrational or outrageous which will defy logic or perception of a sensible person. The area of the shop of the petitioner's is less than the minimum prescribed so is one of the dimension of the shop. The shop is located on a road which is less than 15 feet, the minimum width of the road contemplated under the eligibility conditions. The inspection reports about the shops of the petitioner and other allottee can not be faulted on the basis of proposed lay out plan of the area and on the basis of a photograph produced by Learned Senior Counsel Shri Jayant Nath. The decision not to allot the kerosene depot to the petitioner can not be termed illegal, irrational and suffering from procedural impropriety so as to entail interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India and correct the same by issuance of writs. ? ( 10 ) ISSUANCE of interview letter which is stated to have been issued wrongly by the respondents, also does not create any such right which will entitle petitioner for interview and review of the decision by the authorities to allot the kerosene oil depot, though the shop of the petitioner does not meet minimum eligibility conditions. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.