Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Residents Of Khushalpora Baramulla vs Union Territory Of J & K And Others on 9 December, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Sr. No. 144
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
CM No. 7037/2022 in
WP (C) No. 2797/2022
CM No. 7038/2022
Residents of Khushalpora Baramulla ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through :- Mr. M A Wani, Advocate
V/s
Union Territory of J & K and others ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Sheikh Feroz, Dy. AG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
09.12.2022
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition in representative capacity seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) A writ of Certiorari; quashing the order/communication bearing no DFCS&CA/Adm/law/4646-49 dated 07.10.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2.
b) A writ of Certiorari; quashing the impugned license of private Respondent No. issued by respondent no. 2 vide his no. 35-FCS & CA/Bla/2018 dated 10.05.2018.
c) A writ of Mandamus,' commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to take their ration from Govt. sale center from the village concerned.
d) A writ of Mandamus,' commanding the respondents to advertise the fair price shop dealership Chinned strictly in accordance with Govt. Order no. Govt. order no. 70-FCS&CA of 2018 dated 12.03.2018.
e) A writ of Quo warranto: by directing the Respondent no. 2 to show under which authority he has issued license in favour of the Respondent no. 5 in violation of Govt. order 70-FCS&CA of 2018 dated 12.03.2018.2 WP (C) No. 2797/2022
F) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the attending circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents."
2. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 5 has been granted license for operating Fair Price Shop vide order No. 35-FCS&CA/Bla/2018 dated 10.05.2018 by respondent No. 2, which is in violation of the policy laid down by the Government vide order No. 70-FCS&CA of 2018 dated 12.03.2018. It has been submitted that as per the said policy the official respondents are required to invite applications but in the present case no such procedure was followed by the official respondents prior to granting the impugned license in favour of respondent No. 5. It is also submitted that respondent No. 5 has criminal antecedents and as such the license could not have been granted in his favour. It is averred that the inhabitants of Village Khushalpora, Baramulla have approached the official respondents requesting them that their ration may not be diverted from Government Sale Center but respondent No. 2 is forcing them to take their ration from the Center that is being operated by respondent No. 5. It has been submitted that when the petitioner made a representation before the official respondents the same has been rejected in terms of the impugned communication dated 07.10.2022.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. It appears that the petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the official respondents, whereby his request for continuing with the internal adjustment for villagers of Khushalpora, Baramulla so that they can get ration supply from the Government shop and they are not compelled to purchase the ration from the Fair Price Shop being operated by respondent No. 5 has been rejected. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners have already filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 62/2020, in which an interim order has been passed by 3 WP (C) No. 2797/2022 this Court on 15.01.2020, whereby the present arrangement under which the residents of Village Khushalpora, District Baramulla are receiving their rations from the department of CAPD has been directed to be continued. Thus, if the official respondents are taking action, which is contrary to the aforesaid order, the proper course for the petitioner is to file a contempt petition or an application seeking implementation of the said order but they cannot file another writ petition claiming a similar relief.
5. So far as the challenge laid by the petitioner to the grant of license for operation of the Fair Price Shop is concerned, it appears that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had applied for grant of the license or that he intended to do so in case applications would have been invited by the official respondents for the said purpose. The petitioner cannot file a Public Interest Litigation for challenging the grant of license for operating Fair Price Shop without his right having been infringed by such action of the official respondents.
6. Even otherwise, respondent No. 5 has already filed a writ petition before this Court being OWP No. 211/2019 contending therein that despite having been granted license for operating Fair Price Shop, the department is not providing ration to him for its distribution to the beneficiaries. He has further challenged the action of the department regarding continuance of internal arrangement.
7. From the above it is clear that a host of litigation is going on between the petitioner and the private respondent No. 5 on the issue of grant of license for running of Fair Price Shop to the respondent No. 5, as also for continuance of earlier arrangement regarding supply of ration and now the petitioner has filed another writ petition on the same aspect of the matter. Already a number of orders have been passed by this Court in earlier writ petitions, on the one hand 4 WP (C) No. 2797/2022 directing continuance of internal arrangement and on the other directing the official respondents to provide ration to the respondent No. 5, which, prima facie, appears to be contradictory in nature. In these circumstances, entertaining the present writ petition would add to the already confused situation and in fact its filing amounts to abuse of process of the Court.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The Registry is directed to consolidate all the writ petitions filed on the subject which are pending before this Court and place the same before the same Bench after obtaining orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice(Acting), so that passing of contradictory orders is avoided.
(Sanjay Dhar) Judge Jammu:
09.12.2022 Pawan Angotra Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No