Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S S K Stone Crusher And Screener vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 27 November, 2020
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Supplementary - 2
S. No. 102
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
Through Video Conferencing
WP (C) 1543/2020
CM (5137/2020) CM (5138/2020)
M/S S K Stone Crusher and Screener
... Petitioner(s)
Through: M/s Vikrant Mahajan, R. K. Gupta, Advocates
V/s
UT of J&K and others
Through: Mr. F. A. Natnoo, AAG
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
1. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing order No. DCK/Legal/2020-21/239-43 dated 26.9.2020 passed by respondent No. 3 pursuant to the directions of this court passed on 14.8.2020 in WP(C) 1319/2020 titled M/S S. K. Stone Crusher versus UT of J&K and others.
2. The impugned order has been assailed primarily on the ground that despite requests, the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to put up his case and the impugned order was passed on the basis of a report received by respondent No. 3 from District Mineral Officer, Kathua. The long and short of the grievance of the petitioner is that had respondent No. 3 afforded it an adequate opportunity, the petitioner would have produced before respondent No. 3 enough material to substantiate his submissions made in the representations.
WP (C) 1543/2020 M/S S K Stone Crusher and Screener Page 2 of 3
3. Having gone through the order impugned and finding prima facie that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to represent its case, this court suggested to the learned counsel for the parties that it would meet the ends of justice if the matter is reconsidered by respondent No. 3 after providing an adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Both the counsel responded positively. Mr. Natnoo, learned AAG on instructions from respondent No. 3 submitted that respondent No. 3 shall have no objection if the matter is sent back to respondent No. 3 for reconsideration and passing a fresh order after hearing the petitioner as well as the District Mineral Officer, concerned.
4. In view of the consensus arrived at by the parties, this petition is disposed of by providing as under:
i. That the impugned order bearing No. DCK/Legal/2020- 21/239-43 dated 26.9.2020 passed by respondent No. 3 is quashed.
ii. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 3 for reconsideration and passing of fresh order after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity to the petitioner as well as the District Mineral Officer, Kathua to present their stand. iii. That the parties i.e. the petitioner and the District Mineral Officer, Kathua, would be at liberty to produce whatever documents, evidences or legal precedents they wish to produce, before respondent No. 3.WP (C) 1543/2020 M/S S K Stone Crusher and Screener Page 3 of 3
iv. On receipt of copy of this order from either of the parties, respondent No. 3 shall fix a date of his convenience and inform the parties accordingly to remain present along with the documents, evidence, legal precedents, etc. which they rely upon in support of their respective stands. The parties shall be given a minimum of ten days' notice to come prepared.
v. Respondent No. 3 after considering the material placed before him and giving oral hearing to the petitioner as also to the District Mineral Officer, Kathua, shall pass appropriate orders that may be warranted in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case.
vi. The proceedings as far as practicable shall be concluded within four weeks.
vii. Disposed of.
(SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE
Srinagar
27-11-2020
N Ahmad
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
NISSAR A BHAT
2020.11.27 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document