Babu Ram vs State and Ors.

Petitioner has come to this Court seeking a writ of prohibition calling upon the respondents not to goahead with the enquiry said to have been

initiated on an application preferred by respondent No. 4 It is submitted that on the basis of the said application preferred by respondent No. 4 the

question as to whether the petitioner was given a valid State Subject certificate is going to be reexamined. This certificate was given to the

petitioner in the year 1985. Copy of this is Annexure A. It is submitted that this certificate, if is to be withdrawn, then this can be done only

following the procedure as indicated in the Jammu & Kashmir Grant of. Permanent Resident Certificate (Procedure) Act. 1963.

It is not being disputed that once a certificate is granted, it can be revoked. The said power, however vests with the Government. This is

apparent from Section 6 of the aforesaid Act. For failing of reference this action is reproduced be low :

6; Revision1) The Government, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application made to it in this behalf, call for the record of any case

pending before or disposed of by a competent authority and may uphold or reverse the orders of the competent authority or may pass any other

orders or give any directions as it may deem fit :

Provided that no orders prejudicial to an interested person shall be passed without giving such a person a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

(2) If it appears to a competent authority that substantial question of law or public interest is involved in any proceedings under this Act, it may

report it to the Government and the Government may pass any orders or issue any directions, it may deem fit.

A perusal of the above provision makes it apparent that the Government can at any time, either on its own or an application preferred in this regard

call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by the competent authority can be uphold or reverse that order of the competent

authority. The Government has also the power to pass any order or to give direction as may be deemed proper. The only safeguard which has

been provided is that if any order prejudicial to a person is to be passed, then the person concerned is to be given an opportunity of being heard.

This is so provided in Proviso to Section 6(1).

In the present case, it be seen that no prejudicial order has been passed against the petitioner so far.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that if holding of enquiry ultimately leads to an adverse order being passed this would

also cause prejudice to him, and therefore, this would equally be covered by what is contemplated by proviso to Section 6(1). It is further

submitted that the original file pertaining to the grant of State Subject has not been examined and the enquiry is being conducted on the basis of

some application submitted by respondent No.

It is thus submitted that unless and until the original records and the original file is sent for and unless and until a satisfaction is recorded that there

is room for taking action, no enquiry can be held.

I am of the opinion that the arguments put across by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. As indicated above, no prejudicial order

has been passed against the petitioner. The State and its functionaries cannot be stopped from examining a communication which is addressed to it

by a citizen of the State. As a matter of fact, when ever any fact is brought to the notice of the State, it is the bounden duty of the State to examine

the same. This as indicated above is also provided in the Act; section 6 in this regard stands noticed above As and when any other prejudicial to

the petitioner is passed, he would be at liberty to challenge the same. As at present, no adverse order has been passed. This writ petition as such is

held to be premature. The same is found to be without merit and is dismissed.

Disposed of accordingly.