ABDUL HAMID BEG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Petitioner alleges that he is running a dry fruit stall under license for about a decade at Gulmarg. The Administrative Notified Area Committee Tangmarg/Gulmarg has threatned to demolish his stall, arbitrarily, exposing this shed/stall and stocks to danger. Hence the appropriate writ/direction/order, injuncting respondents from taking any action adverse to him and to provide him alternative site/place for his business. Annexures A, B and C are on record, as supporting material for the relief sought.

(2.) Annexure- A is infact certificate of registration issued to petitioner as dealer in dry fruits in Gulmarg area valid till 31.3.1998 and renewed upto 11.6.2001 under J&K Registration of Tourist Trade Act, 1978/82. This certificate on its face as at present is extinct and cannot be counted as permission to him to establish shed/stall at Gulmarg for sale of/ deal in the dry fruits and other provisions. Similarly page 5 marked as Annexure-A is a license to carry on fruit business under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adultration Rules 1955. The license on its face is for the year 1997-98 as on 20.10.1997. The further endorsement shows that it is renewed for the year 1999-2000. Obviously this license is also no more subsisting. Annexure-B leaves 8 & 9 only show that NAC Tangmarg/Gulmarg has received registration fee from the petitioner from time to time ending March 2002. This fee appears to be connected with the renewal of registration certificate (Annexure-A) and has no significance other than for issuance/renewal of registration certificate. Viewed thus petitioner's claim that he has been duly licensed/permitted to run stall/shed for selling dry fruits and other items by the Notified Area Committee Tangmarg/Gulmarg Project Organisation is not supported by documents, material or record. In fact after taking notice of number of other like cases, it is found that in fact it is Gulmarg Project Organisation which is the authority to accord permission of construction of sheds/shops and that too on terms and conditions of Gulmarg Master Plan. No struc- ture or construction is permitted to be raised on spot and in any case, petitioner has not produced one, to support his case of having been permitted to raise stall. The above referred annexures to the petition are only relevant from the stand point of period of currency of respective documents and the purpose for which permission is issued. Petitioner or his counsel has failed to produce any allotment order. In such circumstances it cannot be said that any right of the petitioner is violated or under the shadow of threat. After all respondents are not legally obligated to continue petitioner's shed/stall on spot when as noted above that in other like case there is drive to remove the unauthorised structures and clear the site of the encroachment, pursuant to policy decision of the Govt. Petitioner cannot be said to have the cause and subsisting right to file writ petition.

(3.) The contention of the Ld. counsel is that other identical petitions as referred in para 13 of the petition have been allowed restraining the respondents not to evict the petitioners of those writ petitions unless rehabilitation scheme is framed, and implemented. Counsel has referred to Annexure-C photostate copy of final order passed in OWP No. 443/2000 as also interim status-quo direction passed in OWP No. 577/98. Perusal of annexures/docu-ments show that the order dated 14.11.2001, is based on the facts and circumstances of that case, when the writ petitioner of that case was permitted to install the tea stall till the rehabilitation scheme is framed. In this case no such assurance is shown to have been given by the Govt. Even such a promise is not forthcoming from record. The order as such has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. The other order dated 23.9.98 in OWP No. 577/98 is just initial provisional direction of status-quo subject to notice whether this direction is still inforce or extended is not clear from record. No reference of facts and circumstances is given in the order. In any case neither of the two directions given in those cases has bearing on this case The other two cases referred in para 13 of this petition are in too general terms without any attempt on the part of the petitioner to place orders, if any, passed thereto on record. In result, writ petition is dismissed in limini. Petition dismissed in limini.