GHULAM MOHD MIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No. 783 of 1988 titled Kh. Moh'd Shahban v. State and others, filed in public interest, passed an order on 29-9-1988, directing the fixation of gradation and sale price of bricks within the shortest possible time. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Director of Food and Supplies, Srinagar, issued notification No. DFSK/S(PC)88/9 dated 7-2-1989 fixing the rate of A-class bricks at Rs. 650/- per thousand for "the city of Srinagar".

(2.) The petitioners, who represent the Brick Kiln Owners and Brick Manufacturers Associations of Kashmir, have challenged this notification, inter alia, on the grounds; (i) that respondent 2 had no power to fix price for the brick kilns which are located outside the city of Srinagar; (ii) that S.3(c) of the Jammu and Kashmir Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, 2000 (for short, the Ordinance hereafter) is ultra vires the Constitution and consequently the impugned notification is without jurisdiction; (iii) that S.3 of the Ordinance gives an unguided direction to the controller and the price fixed under it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness; (iv) that the petitioners were not heard before fixing the rate of bricks and, therefore, the rules of natural justice have been violated; and (v) that respondents 4 to 8 - Deputy Commissioners; be directed to issue notifications fixing the rates of bricks in their respective districts under S.3(c) of the Ordinance.

(3.) All these grounds were reiterated by learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondents have challenged the maintainability of the petition on the grounds that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the impugned notification and that the price fixation being a legislative fact, the charge of arbitrariness cannot be sustained. According to Mr. lshtiq Hussain, the survey report indicates that all the factors which go to constitute the price structure of a brick have been taken into account and, therefore, this cannot be questioned. Mr. K.M. Shahban, intervenor as well as Mr. B.A. Bashir, representating the Public Interest Forum who also sought to intervene in the case, vehemently argued that the impugned notification had been validly issued and was in the interest of the consumers at large and deserved to be upheld.