Equality before Law

Srikrishan Gupta vs. Goverment of NCT of Delhi & Ors

Filed under:Articles 14 and 226, Constitution of India
Appellant: Srikrishan Gupta
Respondent:Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation:123 (2005) Delhi Law Times 227
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges:Vikramjit Sen

Facts

In the year 1994 Srikrishan Gupta and respondent No. 2 (name not mentioned), both applied for a license of a Kerosene Oil Depot (KOD). However, Srikrishan was not successful in obtaining the license and the KOD was granted to respondent No. 2.

This decision was challenged by Srikrishan in this Writ Petition on the ground that respondent no. 2 was illegally treated as a physically disabled person despite the fact that his medical certificate stated that his disability was less than 40%.

Secondly, it was contended that the decision, which had to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner, was in fact taken by the Minister/MLA and therefore there had been a disregard to the statutory duty of the Office of the Commissioner.

Arguments made on behalf of Respondent No. 2

The lawyer for respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petition should not be entertained in the High Court since Srikrishan had not exhausted other alternatives such as filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Food and Supply) in accordance with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995.

This provision stipulates that any person aggrieved by an order of an officer below the rank of a Commissioner (Food and Supply), Delhi refusing to grant or renew a license or suspending or canceling a license may present an appeal before the Commissioner within a period of thirty days of passing the order. The lawyer also contended that the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 came into force only in the year 1996 and therefore did not have a direct bearing on this case.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the arguments and held that as far as the first argument extended by respondent No.2’s lawyer was concerned, the provision of Section 3, Essential Commodities Act did not apply to the facts of this case.

According to the Court, a Writ Petition could contain a prayer for the grant of a license and could also contain a prayer seeking cancellation of the grant of license to a third party for the reason that the decision was illegal. Therefore, this petition was maintainable.

With respect to the second argument, the Court held that before the Act came into force, there was a criterion that had to be considered at the time the license was granted. This criterion was similar to the 40% disability criteria mentioned in Section 2(t) of the Act.

The Court held that even if one were to ignore the statutory provisions of the Disabilities Act, it appeared to be absurd that the degree of disability should be considered an irrelevant factor in the mind of any administrator.

According to the Court, once the Government of India had decided the criteria, which would uniformly determine and define which persons were to be treated, as physically handicapped, all Authorities must adhere to such guidelines.

The Court also examined a letter submitted by the then Dy. Commissioner (Policy) to an ex-member of Parliament which stated that in the matter of allotment due weightage was given to the recommendations of the area MLA while deciding the allotment in favor of any applicant. The Court held that this proposition was contrary to administrative law since every citizen of India was constitutionally guaranteed equality of treatment.

The Court observed that while this petition was pending (for over one decade); the license issued to Respondent No. 2 had been renewed from time to time. The Court held that the license should not be renewed on the expiry of its term. The Government of NCT should invite fresh applications and the decision of whom to grant the KOD license should thereafter be taken in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the Government of NCT of Delhi to not renew the license granted to Respondent No. 2 on the expiry of the then current tenure.

It was further held that a grievous violation of the law had occurred when the Commissioner, on the dictates of the Minister and the MLA concerned, took the decision. The Government of NCT of Delhi was directed to take immediate steps inviting fresh applications within thirty days.

Srikrishan Gupta was entitled to costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the Respondents in equal proportion.

Sections Referred:

• Article 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India
• Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act
• Section 2(t) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995