TANVEER AHMAD BHAT Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged grant of licence for running Fair Price Shop to respondent No.4 made by official respondents in terms of communication No.FCS&CA/FPS/126/2017 dtd. 22/8/2017. Challenge has also been thrown to eligibility condition No.(v) of clause(B) of Government Order No.127FCS&CA of 2016 dtd. 4/8/2016, whereby blood relations of employees of Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs have been made ineligible for grant of Fair Price Shop license.

(2.) It has been submitted by the petitioner that in the year 2010, he approached the respondents to issue license for running a Fair Price Shop in his favour. His case was submitted before respondent No.1 in terms of letter No.DCAPDK/PLG/FPS/328 dtd. 19/1/2010 but till date his application has not been considered. It has been further submitted that after coming into force of policy issued vide Government Order No.127-FCS&CA of 2016 dtd. 4/8/2016, the petitioner again applied before respondent No.1 for issuance of the license for running a Fair Price Shop in his native village Kuhroo Langate Handwara. It has been submitted that respondent No.4 also applied for grant of license to run Fair Price Shop but his age at the relevant time was 42 years and, as such, he was ineligible in terms of the policy dtd. 4/8/2016. According to the petitioner, vide the impugned communication dtd. 22/8/2017, the license was granted by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.4 for running a Fair Price Shop at Village Kuhroo, but the application of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that his brother is employed in the respondent department. According to the petitioner, he has been declared ineligible in view of the impugned condition No.(v) of clause (B) of the policy dtd. 4/8/2016.

(3.) It has been contended by the petitioner that the impugned condition contained in Government Order dtd. 4/8/2016, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of petitioner's right to equality. It has been further contended that the petitioner cannot be denied the right of consideration only on the ground that his brother is working in the respondent department. According to the petitioner, his brother is residing separately from him and by denying consideration to him, the respondents, on the basis of impugned condition, are violating his right to livelihood.