( 1 ) ISSUE notice. Mr. L. K. Garg, Advocate accepts notice. With consent of counsel for the parties the matter was heard for final disposal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner had applied on 29. 10. 2004, upon a notification published eliciting response for licensing of public distribution outlets. On 27. 7. 2006 it received an interview call requiring the presence of the applicant with necessary documents. The interview was apparently held on 26. 7. 2006 and 17. 8. 2006. Thereafter, it received a rejection memo, intimating that the outlet could not be allotted to it. The said rejection memo reads as follows :- "office of Food and Supplies Officer cricle " 25, Nangloi rejection Memo this is to inform you that your application for filling up of FPS/kod vacancy is general category in the notified area of Nihal Vihar/ghs and7, Pachim Vihar, nangloi, in the name of M/s. Saini Stores at Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, was not found suitable on merits for grant of license and the same has bee rejected after due consideration by the Selection Board. This issues with the prior approval of the licensing authority and on behalf of the Selection Board. Sd/- (Mangej Singh)FSO, Circle -25, Nangloi" ( 3 ) THE petitioner appealed to the Commissioner (Food and Supplies), government of NCT of Delhi (hereafter referred to as "the Appellate authority" ). The Appellate Authority after considering the record and the grounds of appeal rejected the same inter alia observing as follows : "the licensing authority, i. e. Asstt. Commissioner (North West) has contended that the application of the applicant was rejected by the Selection Board, constituted for the purpose of deciding eligible candidate candidate for grant of authorization for a new FPS. The Selection Board rejected the application of the appellant on the grounds that the applicant had no knowledge about the PDS system; he could not even explain the transaction of amount of his bank account as well as the amount of rent he was paying for the said premises. It has also been observed by the Selection Board that the candidate failed miserably in the interview. The Selection Board was also apprehensive that all the candidates were dummy candidates, acting as proxies for the mafia controlling the PDS and therefore no candidate was found suitable for running a PDS outlet. It has also been observed by the Selection Board that the candidate failed miserably in the interview. The Selection Board was also apprehensive that all the candidates were dummy candidates, acting as proxies for the mafia controlling the PDS and therefore no candidate was found suitable for running a PDS outlet. As regard delay in selection process, the licensing authority has stated that delay in completing the process of filling up the vacancy occurred as the position of APL cards was not certain because of ongoing process of renewal of APL cards. I have carefully gone through the records produced before me. I have also heard the appellant in person. I do not find any merit in the appeal as the application of the appellant was rejected by the Selection Board on the basis of his personal interview and records produced before it. Therefore, there is no reason to intervene with the decision of Selection Board, Resultantly, instant appeal is rejected devoid of merit. Ordered accordingly; Parties to be informed. " ( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the approach of the Appellate authority cannot be supported in law and is arbitrary. No reasons were indicated in the rejection memo. The reasons mentioned in the appellate order had no relevance and were extraneous to the circumstances. Learned counsel contended that the observations about the applicant being a proxy candidate on behalf of other vested interests was without any basis and were conjectural. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel contended that the view of the Appellate Authority is patently discriminatory because in another case namely Appeal No. 60/2006 where the applicant's request had been rejected on ground of broadly identical considerations, i. e. his response in the interview about relevant factors such as rent, the nature of Public Distribution System, dimensions of the proposed premises and his inability to give response of the premises etc, the appellate authority took a contrary view. Learned counsel relied upon the order dated 10. 8. 2007 of the Appellate Authority in that cae where it was observed that there was a possibility that such facts could not be answered by a nervous applicant before the Selection Board. The Appellate Authority in that order (i. e. in Appeal No. 60/2006) had also faulted the licensing authority with not disclosing reasons in the rejection memo. 8. 2007 of the Appellate Authority in that cae where it was observed that there was a possibility that such facts could not be answered by a nervous applicant before the Selection Board. The Appellate Authority in that order (i. e. in Appeal No. 60/2006) had also faulted the licensing authority with not disclosing reasons in the rejection memo. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and submitted that the rejection memo was issued after due consideration of all the facts by the selection Board which had occasion to see and assess the applicant. It was contended that knowledge levels of applicants and his ability to manage outlets are extremely relevant in the present context. The suspicion that he was put up by some vested interests was voiced; certainly it was not based on suspicion. Learned counsel also stated that there is no requirement of disclosing reasons in a rejection memo either in the guidelines or through any statutory provision. Learned counsel submitted that in the other case cited i. e. Appeal No. 60/2006 there was a requirement of disclosing reasons because it concerned allotment of a kerosene oil depot in terms of Clause 5 (2) of the Kerosene Oil (Exports and price control order) 1962. ( 7 ) I have considered the submissions of parties and examined the impugned order. While the Selection Committee is certainly entitled to apprise the demenour, ability and aptitude of applicants before it and make suitable recommendations, in this case the Appellate Authority appears to have been influenced by certain comments voicing suspicion about the petitioner's genuineness as an applicant. Even if those observations are to be ignored, the fact remains that the Selection Board had rejected his candidature. However, the approach of the Appellate Authority in faulting the Selection Committee in appeal No. 60/2006, in my opinion facially appears to be contradictory with its order in the present case. If the Appellate Authority felt that the grounds for rejection by the Selection Board in one case whether it concerned the kerosene oil or PDS, were irrelevant and that were the applicant was entitled to benefit of a fresh consideration its approach should have been similar in an identical case. Its failure to do so resulted in two contradictory orders in similar circumstances; this would appear to be discriminatory. Its failure to do so resulted in two contradictory orders in similar circumstances; this would appear to be discriminatory. In this view of the matter I am of the view that the applicant's case has to be examined afresh. The impugned order of the Commissioner is therefore set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration to the Commissioner. It is open to her to interview the applicant and form an independent opinion before making the final order. ( 8 ) THE Appellate Authority shall endeavour to complete the process as early as possible and preferably within three months from today, after issuing notice and hearing the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Order dasti.