Abdul Aziz vs State and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—It is necessary to give the brief resume of the cases herein:

OWP No. 1490/1992

It is pleaded in this writ petition that petitioner is unemployed educated youth and has established Carpet Weaving Unit at District Budgam. And

loan to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh came to be sanctioned by Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Budgam Branch in the year 1991. He had also applied for

allotment of shop. Respondent No. 3 made some recommendations contained in annexure-P1.

OWP No. 1951/1994

In this petition, petitioners 18 in number have sought indulgence of this Court for directing the respondents to perform the promise and to allot

and handover the shops constructed at Totoground Shopping Complex and not allot the same to any other person on the ground that respondent-

State has devised a policy for the welfare of the unemployed youth and State had decided to construct shops at various commercial sites in order

to provide the same to unemployed youth.

Respondents have specifically pleaded in the reply that writ petition is not maintainable and none of the legal/fundamental rights of the petitioners

have been infringed.

OWP No. 2207/1994

It is averred in this petition that petitioner being unemployed youth was granted financial assistant under Self Service Employment Programme

and accordingly he purchased a Video Coach (Super Luxury Coach) bearing registration No. 8969-JKC The said coach came to be destroyed in

the bomb blast on 10th February, 1989. Petitioner had requested respondent No. 1 to provide a small shop at Doodh Ganga Shopping Complex.

OWP No. 2824/1994

Petitioner has averred in this petition that he had obtained loan to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- from State Bank of India and was running a shop at

Lal Bazar Nalamar Road. The said shop came to he dismantled during widening of Nalamar Road. Government had to rehabilitate him by

providing shop.

OWP No. 2865/1994

It is averred in this petition that petitioner was having a show room at Nowhatta. He had obtained loan of Rs. 20,000/- from Jammu & Kashmir

Bank Branch Nowhatta. The said shop came to be dismantled during the widening of Nalamar Road. Respondents had to provide him shop which

they failed to do so.

Heard. Perused. Considered.

The question involved in these petitions are;

Whether the petitioners who are in the lis for the last more than fifteen years were and are still unemployed youth?

Whether the scheme whereby and whereunder the petitioners are seeking relief is enforceable by law?

There is nothing on the files suggesting the fact that these petitioners were and are still unemployed and were/are registered as such. However,

be it as it is, the pivotal question round which entire controversy revolves is whether these petitions are maintainable i.e. whether the scheme, if any,

was/is enforceable?

There is nothing on the files suggesting that what was the policy/scheme formulated by the respondents.

Whether the court can direct the Government-respondents to enforce the so-called scheme, the reply is in negative. There is nothing on the file

suggesting the fact that scheme was approved by the State and that scheme is statutory in nature and confers any legal or fundamental rights upon

the petitioner(s). May be there would have been some correspondence between the parties i.e. petitioners and official respondent but that can

never be construed that Government has formulated a scheme and that has attained shape of a statute or that correspondence conferred/confers

any legal right upon the petitioners.

A dispute viz-a-viz premium has also been raised in all these petitions and that dispute is dispute of fact which cannot be gone through in the

writ petition.

My this view is fortified by judgment of this Court delivered on 26th July, 2002 in OWP No. 3063/1994 titled All Kashmir Cinema Employees

v. State of J&K and Ors..

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that all these petitions merit to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed along with all connected CMP(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.