Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 82
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Ramalingam Sudhakar, J.
Gurvinder Singh and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
State of J&K and Ors. - Respondents
OWP No. 91 of 2016, MP No. 1 of 2016, OWP No. 1831 of 2015, MP Nos. 4 of 2016, 1 of 2015 & 3 of 2016, OWP No. 1740 of 2015, MP No. 1 of 2015, OWP No. 379 of 2016, MP No. 1 of 2016, Contempt (OWP) No. 88 of 2016 In OWP No. 20 of 2016
Decided On : 19-04-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. S.K. Shukla, Ms. Rani Kiyala, Mr. Ravinder Sharma, Ms. Monika Sumbria, Ms. Meenakshi Salathia, Mr. S.H Rather
For the Respondents: Mr. Chandan Sharma, Mr. Ehsan Mirza, Mr. Sudesh Magotra
For the Interveners : Mr. Sudershan Sharma, Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Mr. Ashish Sharma, Mr. Ronik Sharma
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper infrastructure, security mechanisms, and thorough verification and scrutiny of registered traders and firms in regulating trade across the Line of Control.
Headnote:
Cross LOC Trade - Trade Regulation - [Standard Operating Procedure, Ministry of Home Affairs Guidelines] - The court allowed the mandamus to provide infrastructure facilities, security mechanisms, and full body scanners for trade across LOC. It also ordered an independent inquiry into the genuineness and authenticity of registered firms and directed the holding of joint meetings to settle dues. The court emphasized the need for proper verification and scrutiny of registered traders and firms, and vacated the interim order restraining the registration of new firms, directing the authority to proceed with thorough scrutiny and verification in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure and Ministry of Home Affairs Guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions involved traders seeking relief related to the regulation of trade across the Line of Control (LOC). They raised concerns about the registration of new firms without proper infrastructure and verification, leading to security threats and malpractices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioners, allowing the mandamus for infrastructure facilities, security mechanisms, and full body scanners. It also ordered an independent inquiry into the genuineness and authenticity of registered firms and directed the holding of joint meetings to settle dues. The court emphasized the need for proper verification and scrutiny of registered traders and firms, and vacated the interim order restraining the registration of new firms, directing the authority to proceed with thorough scrutiny and verification in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure and Ministry of Home Affairs Guidelines.
Issues: The issues included the lack of proper infrastructure, security concerns, registration of new firms without thorough verification, and the need for joint meetings to settle dues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need for infrastructure facilities, security mechanisms, and full body scanners to regulate trade across LOC. It emphasized the importance of proper verification and scrutiny of registered traders and firms, and directed the authority to proceed with thorough scrutiny and verification in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure and Ministry of Home Affairs Guidelines.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with the court allowing the mandamus for infrastructure facilities, security mechanisms, and full body scanners, ordering an independent inquiry into the genuineness and authenticity of registered firms, and directing the holding of joint meetings to settle dues. The court vacated the interim order restraining the registration of new firms, directing the authority to proceed with thorough scrutiny and verification in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure and Ministry of Home Affairs Guidelines.
1. Writ petitions are of the years 2015 and 2016.
2. Writ petitioners in OWP No. 91/2016, sought the following reliefs:-
“(i) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioners who have been enrolled/enlisted as Cross LOC Traders at TFC Chakkan Da Bagh, Poonch w.e.f. 21.10.2014 vide order No. TFC/CDB/P/Trade/ 2215-70 dated 21.10.2014 read with Order No. TFC/CDB/P/Trade/2221-26 dated 21.10.2014 issued by the Respondent No. 3, to conduct the Cross LOC Trade at TFC Chakkan Da Bagh, Poonch;
(ii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to include the name of the petitioners in the upgraded list of enrolled Cross LOC Traders at TFC Chakkan Da Bagh, Poonch so as to facilitate Cross LOC Trade by the petitioners at TFC Chakkan Da Vagh, Poonch without any interference;
(iii) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents along with costs.”
3. Petitioners in OWP No. 1831/2015, sought the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to provide requisite infrastructural facilities/mechanism including storage capacity and other facilities in order to carry the L.O.C trade in a smooth manner.
(ii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to provide full body scanners to scan the trucks which carry goods from across the border across L.O.C. in order to carry on the trade without any security threats.
(iii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents more particularly respondent No. 6 to conduct an independent enquiry and probe into the genuineness and authenticity of the firms registered with the respondent No. 4 and antecedents of their properties.
(iv) With a further prayer restraining the respondents from resorting to registration of any new firms till the time requisite infrastructural facilities/mechanism are developed to carry on the L.O.C. trade.
(v) With the further prayer to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents particularly respondent No. 4 to settle the claims/dues of the petitioners by initiating the process for holding joint Meeting of Traders of both the sides to sort out their claims.
(vi) Such other additional or alternative relief which this Hon’ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.”
4. Writ petitioners in OWP No. 1740/2015, sought the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to provide requisite infrastructural facilities/mechanism including storage capacity and other facilities in order to carry the L.O.C trade in a smooth manner.
(ii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to provide full body scanners to scan the trucks which carry goods from across the border across L.O.C. in order to carry on the trade without any security threats.
(iii) With a further prayer restraining the respondents from resorting to registration of any new firms till the time requisite infrastructural facilities/mechanism are developed to carry on the L.O.C. trade.
(iv) With the further prayer to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents particularly respondent No. 4 to settle the claims/dues of the petitioners by initiating the process for holding Joint Meeting of Traders of both the sides to sort out their claims.
(v) Such other additional or alternative relief which this Hon’ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.”
5. Writ petitioner in OWP No. 379/2016, sought the follow
