Allowed

Gurdeep Singh v. Ut of J and K Th. Chief Secretary, Jammu and Others

J&K HC7 Sept 2026WP(C)/2809/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir disposed of a writ petition challenging a recommendation to cancel an Area of Locus Conditionis (ALC) certificate. The Court held that the revisional authority must hear the petitioner before acting on such a recommendation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu/Revisional Authority not to take action against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned recommendation without hearing the petitioner.

Gurdeep Singh Vs Ut of J and K Th. Chief Secretary… — Writ and Judicial Review | J&K HC (2026)

¶1

Serial No. 31

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

WP(C) No. 2809/2026 CM No. 6180/2026

¶4

Gurdeep Singh

¶5

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate

UT of J&K and ors.

.…. Respondent(s)

Through:

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER 07.09.2026

¶13

The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged recommendation dated 30.01.2014 made by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Akhnoor to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu with regard to cancellation of ALC category certificate issued in his favour.

¶14

As per the case of the petitioner, he belongs to an area, which has been notified as ALC and on that basis, Tehsildar, Akhnoor had issued certificate dated 30.01.2012. It has been submitted that the petitioner has recently come to know that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Akhnoor has made recommendation vide communication dated 30.01.2014 to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu for cancellation of the aforesaid certificate. According to the petitioner, the impugned recommendation has been made without hearing him and without associating him in any type of enquiry.

¶15

Heard and considered.

¶16

Section 18 of the Reservation Act vests power with the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner to suomoto or on an application

¶17

2 WP(C) No. 2809/2026

¶18

made to exercise its power of revision for satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order or proceeding of the competent authority. It further provides that no order can be made against a person without affording opportunity of being heard. In view of this position of law, the Deputy Commissioner/Revisional Authority is duty bound to hear the petitioner if he proposes to act upon the impugned recommendation made by SDM, Akhnoor.

¶19

¶20

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu/Revisional Authority, not to take any action

¶21

against the petitioner on the basis of impugned recommendation dated

¶22

30.01.2014 without hearing the petitioner.

¶23

6. The petition stands disposed of .

¶24

(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE

¶25

Jammu 07.09.2026 Neha-II

¶26

NEHA KUMARI 2026.09.07 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurdeep Singh v. Ut of J and K Th. Chief Secretary, Jammu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdeep Singh v. Ut of J and K Th. Chief Secretary, Jammu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases