Disposed

Mohd Sharief Khan v. U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others

J&K HC22 Dec 2022WP(C)/2748/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant applied for transfer of a Rice Huller license held by his deceased father and uncle. Respondents delayed the process despite a direction to enquire. The court directed expeditious decision within eight weeks and permitted the appellant to run the Rice Huller during pendency.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to decide the transfer application within eight weeks. Petitioner permitted to run the Rice Huller during pendency.

Mohd Sharief Khan Vs U T of J and K Th Commissioner… — Service and Employment | J&K HC (2022)

¶1

Sr. No. 163

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

WP (C) No. 2748/2022 CM No. 7642/2022

¶4

Mohd. Sharief Khan

¶5

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. N. D. Qazi, Advocate.

UT of J&K and others

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER

¶13

22.12.2022

¶14

The short grievance of the petitioner as projected in the instant petition is

¶15

that upon death of his father and uncle holders of a Rice Huller license bearing No. 28-RF/73 dated 07.02.1973 applied to the respondents for transfer of the same in his favour and same is not being considered and transferred.

¶16

It is being stated that while considering the application submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 18.09.2022 directed the respondent No. 4 to conduct an enquiry into the matter and submit a report within a week’s time positively, and that despite the said positive direction, the respondent No. 4 did not furnish any report to the respondent No. 3, compelling the petitioner to maintain the instant petition.

¶17

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are sitting over the matter which has gravely prejudiced his rights and interests and that the respondents till date have failed to discharge their statutory obligation caused upon on them.

¶18

WP (C) No. 2748/2022

¶19

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for disposal of the writ petition at this stage, while seeking a direction against the respondents to accord effective consideration to the matter and to take a decision thereof expeditiously, within some time frame.

¶21

Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned Dy. AG enters appearance on asking of the Court on behalf of the respondents and in principle is not averse to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

Mr. Sharma, however, would contend that the respondents will take decision in the matter on its own merits in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.

¶23

Having regard to the aforesaid position, facts and circumstances, the petition is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to decide the representation/application claimed to have been filed by the petitioner for transfer of license of the Rice Huller from the name of his father and uncle within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner to the respondents. Till such time the decision as aforesaid is taken by the respondents, the petitioner shall be permitted to run the Rice Huller unless there is no other legal impediment thereto.

¶24

Disposed of. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE

¶25

Jammu 22.12.2022 Shivalee

¶26

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

Mohd Sharief Khan v. U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Sharief Khan v. U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt 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

Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs S.S.Kapur and Ors.

Mohd.Latief Vs State Th.Secy.School Education Deptt. and Ors.

Chatter Singh Vs State Th.C.a.P.D.D.and Ors.

Zulfan and Another Vs U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Home Deptt and Others

Subash Chander Sharma Vs U.O.I.Th.Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Ghulam Hyder Wani Vs State Th. C.A.P.D. and Ors.