Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Iqra Gulzar vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 22 July, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 1512/2022
Reserved on 20.07.2022.
Pronounced on 22.07.2022.
Iqra Gulzar
..... petitioner (s)
Through :- Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Sheikh Feroz, DAG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1 The petitioner is aggrieved and has called in question the validity of Government Order No. 57-JK (FCS & CA) of 2022 dated 14.06.2022 ['the impugned order'] passed by respondent No.1 in compliance to the judgment dated 11.05.2022 passed by a Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 2571/2021. Vide the order impugned, the Government has rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the same was not supported by a Resolution of the residents of the village and that the Masjid Committee which has passed Resolution in favour of the petitioner is no substitute for the residents of the village.
2. Briefly put the facts of the case are that, in terms of a communication bearing No. FCS&CA/FPS/123/2017 dated 22.09.2017 issued by the Administrative Department to the Director, FCS & CA, a fair price shop licence in favour of the petitioner for Yatoo Mohala Midoora was approved. In response to the said communication and the approval granted by the Administrative Department, the petitioner was asked to complete all the requisite formalities. Upon completion of requisite formalities, the Assistant 2 WP(C ) 1512/2022 Director, FCS & CA Department, Pulwama issued a fair price shop licence in favour of the petitioner and directed the Tehsil Supply Officer, FCS & CA Department to ensure that all the necessary documents as required under the FPS Policy of 2016 and the Government Orders issued from time to time are obtained from the petitioner. While the petitioner was yet to run his fair price shop on commission basis, the action of the respondents came to be questioned by one Bashir Ahmed Yatoo in OWP No. 1573/2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2020 directing the official respondents to treat the writ petition as representation and pass a speaking order within one month from the date a copy of the order was served upon them. The official respondents were further directed to take into account all the pleas raised by the petitioner Bashir Ahmed Yatoo in his petition, more particularly, the recommendation of respondent No.3.
3 In compliance to order dated 21.09.2020 passed in OWP No. 1573/2017, the matter was considered by the Director, FCS & CA, Kashmir, who vide order No.487-DFCS&CA of 2020 dated 05.11.2020 rejected the claim of the petitioner Bashir Ahmed Yatoo and directed the Assistant Director, FCS & CA, Pulwama to restore the supply of ration to the petitioner herein. However, subsequently, the Director, vide his communication No. DFCS & CADK/Adm/Law-2062-64 dated 09.11.2022, kept order dated 05.11.2022 (supra) in abeyance ab initio. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 2571/2021 seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the supply and allow her to operate fair price shop at Yatoo Mohalla Midoora, Tral for which she had been issued the licence by the respondents on 22.09.2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11.05.2022 directing the Administrative Department to consider the matter and take a final decision in the light of representation made by the 3 WP(C ) 1512/2022 petitioner which was supported by a resolution of 'no objection' by the villagers. It is in compliance to the judgment dated 11.05.2022 of this Court, the respondents have passed the impugned order.
4 The order impugned is assailed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the same is not in conformity with the directions passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2571/2021 and is, otherwise, factually incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fair price shop licence issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority was sought to be revoked only on the ground that the application moved by the petitioner for obtaining the licence was not supported by the resolution of the residents of the village, which, as per the scheme in-vogue was, sine quo non for issuance of fair price shop licence. He submits that the petitioner had submitted to the respondents a resolution of the Masjid Committee supporting her candidature for the licence in question.
5 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, I am of the view that the order impugned, which has been passed by the Government in compliance with the judgment passed by this Court on 11.05.2022 is legally perfect and does not call for interference by this Court.
6 Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that, in terms of sub-Clause (viii) of Clause-B of Government Order No.127-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 04.08.2016, a resolution passed by the residents of the village, where a fair price shop licence is to be granted in favour of an applicant, is sine quo non before his/her candidature is considered by the competent authority. As is found by the respondents, the petitioner neither, at the time of submission of application form, nor thereafter could produce the requisite resolution in terms of the policy. He, however, produced a resolution/NOC issued by the 4 WP(C ) 1512/2022 Masjid Committee Mohalla Midoora, which cannot be a substitute for resolution of the residents of the village. The Mohalla Masjid Committee does not represent the entire population of the village and, therefore, any resolution passed by the Mohalla Masjid Committee cannot be treated as a resolution by the residents of the village. The respondents are, therefore, correct in reaching the conclusion that the fair price shop licence approved in favour of the petitioner, was without fulfilling the requisite formalities envisaged under the Scheme and the Government order referred to above. The respondents, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, have clearly shown their intention to advertise the position afresh in accordance with the policy norms and the petitioner would be free to apply for FPS licence, if he fulfills the terms and conditions of such Advertisement Notification.
7 Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. This petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE
Srinagar
22.07.2022
Sanjeev Whether order is speaking: Yes
Whether order is reportable :Yes