Disposed

M/S Aar Kay Enterprises Th Rakesh Kumar Sharma Jammu. v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Chief Secretary and Others.

J&K HC3 Jul 2020WP(C)/1016/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an order sealing the petitioner's unit due to lack of current consent to operate. However, it directed the respondent authority to decide the petitioner's pending renewal application within four weeks, presuming consent if no objection arises. The decision applies natural justice principles to the context of missing renewal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order not interfered with; petitioner directed to renewal application decided by respondent within four weeks; presumption of consent if no objection.

M/S Aar Kay Enterprises Th Rakesh Kumar Sharma Jammu. Vs… — Service and Employment | J&K HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR ATJAMMU

¶2

WP(C) 1016/2020 CM 2642/2020

¶3

M/s Aar Kay Enterprises

¶4

.....Petitioner (s)

¶5

Through :- Mr. Anil Mahajan Advocate.

¶6

V/s

¶7

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others

¶8

.....Respondent(s)

¶9

Through :-

¶10

Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

¶11

ORDER(ORAL)

¶12

1 Impugned in this petiton is an order bearing No. 112-PCB of 2019 dated 26.12.2019 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the Deputy Commissioner Jammu has been directed to immediately close down the unit and seal the premises of the petitioner. There is a similar direction to the Director, Industries and Commerce, Jammu and Chief Engineer, Electric and Maintenance (PDD) Jammu to de-register the unit and snap the electric supply forthwith.

¶13

2 Briefly stated the facts as projected by the petitioner in this petition are that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma is the proprietor of a small scale industry unit situated at Karyal Brahmana Bishnah (Jammu). It is registered as SSI Unit by respondent No.5 for the activity of manufacturing of multi coloured laminated pouches/rolls/printed shrink pack and printed laminated fabric woven sacks (for industrial use) only. The unit, as per the certificate of respondent No.5, went into production on 11.02.2014.

¶14

2 WPC 1016/2020

¶15

3 It is claimed that immediately upon registration of the unit, the petitioner applied to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for consent to operate which was granted and thereafter renewed by respondent No.2 vide his order No. 101 of 2016 dated 18.05.2016. It is submitted that the aforesaid consent to operate was valid till January 2018 and thereafter the petitioner applied for renewal and even deposited renewal fee of Rs.33600/- along with all requisite documents, but the same is still pending consideration before respondent No.2. As per consent to operate (renewal) dated 18.05.2016, the unit of the petitioner was treated as a green category unit.

¶16

4 It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the fact that the petitioner has strictly restricted to the registered activities and has not ever indulged in the manufacturing of polythene bags and other allied products of less than 50 micron thickness, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, without even affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, have passed the impugned order. It is, thus, urged that the impugned order deserves to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice.

¶17

5 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that though, the impugned order appears to be, prima facie, in violation of principles of natural justice, yet the same could not be interfered with, for the simple reason that admittedly, after January 2018, the petitioner does not possess consent to operate from respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The compliance with the principles of natural justice, in view of the aforesaid admitted position, would be a useless formality. The petitioner has not placed on record any such consent to operate having been issued by the respondents for the period beyond January 2018.

¶18

WPC 1016/2020

¶19

¶20

6 As a matter of fact, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that he has applied for consent to operate (renewal) and has deposited the requisite fee and the documents, yet respondent No.2 is not passing the appropriate orders and issuing a requisite certificate.

¶21

7 Keeping in view the totality of circumstances obtaining in the case, this petition is disposed of by holding as under:

¶22

(i) the order impugned, though passed in violation of principles of natural justice, is not interfered with, for the petitioner cannot claim to operationalize his unit without having valid consent to operate issued by respondent No.2;

¶23

(ii) respondent No.2 is under statutory obligation to consider the application of the petitioner seeking consent to operate (renewal) and pass appropriate orders thereon with reasonable dispatch. Accordingly, he is directed to immediately and forthwith consider the pending application

¶24

of the petitioner, if any, for consent to operate(renewal) and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case of any shortcoming in the application of the petitioner, the same shall be pointed out by respondent No.2 to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶25

8 It is made clear that in case appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner are not passed within the stipulated period, it shall be presumed that respondent No.2 has no objection with regard to the petitioner

¶26

4 WPC 1016/2020

¶27

carrying on registered activities in the unit and in that eventuality, the petitioner shall be permitted to operationalize the unit by indulging in the activities duly registered with the Department of Industries.

¶28

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE

¶29

Jammu

¶30

03.07.2020 Sanjeev

¶31

Whether the order is speaking: Yes. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

¶32

SANJEEV KUMAR UPPAL 2020.07.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Aar Kay Enterprises Th Rakesh Kumar Sharma Jammu. v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Chief Secretary and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aar Kay Enterprises Th Rakesh Kumar Sharma Jammu. v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Chief Secretary and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Aziz Din

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sanju Raju and Ors.

Bakel Chand and Ors. Vs Vijay Kumar

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors.

UOI.TH.529,ASC Bn Vs Varinder Kumar and Ors.

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sanasr Chand and Ors.