AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Salih Pirzada, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Faheem Shah, GA, for the respondents.
There is a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. Though the delay is very short but the appellants have not given any detailed explanation for the same except for stating that the delay occasioned due to time consumed in taking legal advice but without indicating when the advice was sought and when the advice was given. However, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and that the delay is not long and not wilful or deliberate, we condone the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-to be deposited with the Registry within one week which shall be utilized towards the lawyers’ welfare fund.
Delay condonation application No.4407/2022 is, accordingly, allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal.
The appellants have preferred this appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the writ court in WP(C) No.1126/2022 : Abdul Hameed Bhat &anr. v. UT of JK and others, whereby the writ petition of the appellants has been dismissed.
The dispute in the writ petition was regarding allotment of space/ shop in the Fruit and Vegetable Mandi for which applications were invited. The Committee on 25.01.2022 took a decision that all applications so far received would stand cancelled.
The aforesaid resolution of the Committee was impugned in the writ petition on the ground that the appellants having applied and having deposited the first instalment of the premium amount, their applications are not liable to be cancelled.
Mere submission of applications or even deposit of one instalment of the premium amount does not give the appellants an indefeasible right to any allotment of the place/ shop in the Fruit & Vegetable Mandi. In case a policy decision has been taken by the Committee to treat all the applications received so far as cancelled it does not impinges upon the legal right of the appellants as it would always be open for them to apply again afresh as and when applications for the purpose are invited in future.
The learned Single Judge has also adopted the same reasoning and relying upon the decision in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa : (2007) 14 SCC 517 has refused to entertain the writ petition.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with direction to the respondents to refund the premium amount, if any deposited by the appellants, at the earliest.