MILLAPA RAM Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY his order dated February 21, 1956 the Tehsildar Jammu respondent No, 3 herein, directed, the issue of a certificate of permanent residentship in favour of Shri Sharma, respondent No. 4 herein. The petitioner agitated the matter in revision before the Government. The revision was disposed of by the Revenue Minister, respondent No. 2 herein, who, by his order dated December 17, 1957 remanded the matter for fresh enquiry to Tehsildar Jammu, upon fresh enquiry the Tehsildar Jammu, by his order dated 20 -4 -1960, again directed issue of permanent residentship certificate in favour of respondent No. 4. The petitioner again went in revision to the Government. By Government Order No. VA -3 of 1973 dated 3 -4 -1973 the revision was again dismissed by the Revenue Minister acting on behalf of the Government. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition and challenged the order.

(2.) THE principal plea raised in the petition is that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice. Dwelling on this plea the petitioner has averred on affidavit that his counsel, S. Pritam Singh, Vakil, was informed that the date of hearing fixed in the revision was 31 -3 -1973 and when on that date the counsel went to argue the matter before the Revenue Minister, he was told by the concerned Secretary that the case had already been decided and the orders would be conveyed to the parties in due course. But actually, he adds, the impugned order was subsequently passed on 3 -3 -1973 behind the back of the petitioner. The respondents have vaguely stated in reply that the petitioner had wilfully absented himself on the date fixed in the case. That reply too has not been verified much less supported by any counter affidavit. Accordingly the allegations made by the petitioner on oath must be treated as uncontroverted. On these allegations it is clear that the impugned order was made behind the back of the petitioner who was neither served nor had otherwise any notice of the hearing fixed on 3 -4 -1973 when the order was made. I might even add that the case was taken up at random on the said date as according to the impugned order, the other side too was absent. In that view the impugned order is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) EVEN so. argued Mr. Anil Dev Singh appearing for the Revenue Minister, this court ought not to interfere by making the rule absolute for certiorari. Because, the grant of permanent residentship certificate to respondent No. 4, as he put, it, does not invade personal or particular right of the petitioner to entitle him to ask the court to exercise its discretion as to the granting of a writ of certiorari. In other words, his argument is that the petitioner has no personal or private interest in the subject matter to entitle the petitioner to apply for certiorari. In this Mr. Anil seems to assume that the petitioner has no interest of his own beyond some inconvenience suffered by him m common with the members of the public if the law is not administered properly. The assumption is not correct. The petitioner has a particular interest in the subject matter and nothing can better explain it than the fact that every permanent resident of the State has unquestionably certain special rights and privileges available to him ; for instance, the right to acquire immovable property in the State, which are not available to the non -permanent resident and, so, if person is admitted to the category of the permanent residents of the State without title, it constitutes an invasion of those rights, threatened if not actual.