High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 05 J&K CK 0049

Ab. Ahad Dar vs State of J&K and ors.

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 4 May 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ramalingam Sudhakar
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
417 of 2017, MP No 01 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 357 words
1.

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

a) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to issue supply to the petitioner''s Sale Depot in terms

of Order No. SS/Coop/332-34 dated 01.08.2012 without any hindrance.

b) Issue a writ, of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from issuing supply to any other person in the Rajpora Rajwar"".

2.

Going by the nature of the relief claimed, instant petition is admitted to hearing and taken up for final disposal.

3.

In the writ petition, it is averred that petitioner has been given a license of Sale Depot at Rajpora for supply of fertilizer and essential

commodities including the Kerosene Oil. He is running the said Depot based on an order dated 01.08.2012 passed by 3rd respondent. According

to the petitioner, he has been supplying commodities to the inhabitants of the above said area for the last more than four years. However, without

any reason respondents are trying to stop the supplies to the Depot of the petitioner, therefore, he is aggrieved and has filed the instant writ

petition.

4.

In support of this writ petition, the petitioner has annexed copy of the engagement order and good conduct certificate, however, there is nothing

on record to show that supplies have been stopped to the Depot of the petitioner and that there is any action taken by the authority.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that if any action is proposed on a complaint or otherwise against the petitioner it will be as per the

procedure prescribed by law and he will be put on notice. The writ petition filed on mere apprehension is not justified.

6.

In view of the above, if petitioner is continuously running the Sale Depot and if there is no restraining order of any kind, the question of issuance

of direction sought for does not arise. If the petitioner requires supplies more than what have been given to him, he can make a representation in

writing to the competent authority who shall accord consideration to the same forthwith.

7.

Writ petition disposed of as above.