2022 Supreme(J&K) 650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
Parveez Ahmad Baba – Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of J. & K. and Others - Respondents
Decided On : 13-09-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.A. Qayoom with Mr. M. Tufail.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganie with Mr. Muzaffar Nabi Lone.
The main legal point established is that a license under the Food Safety and Standards Act is granted to the premises and not to an individual, and joint ownership is required for license application.
Headnote:
Food Safety and Standard Act - License - 2006 - [Section 31, Regulations 2.1.2 to 2.1.4] - The court analyzed the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, particularly Section 31 and Regulations 2.1.2 to 2.1.4, and concluded that a license is granted to a person in respect of premises. The court emphasized that the license is issued to the premises and not to an individual, and highlighted the requirement for joint ownership to apply for a license.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the issuance of a license to the respondent for running 'Samci Restaurant' and sought restoration of his license and GST registration. The petitioner claimed sole ownership and operation of the restaurant, while the respondent asserted joint ownership and operation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the premises were jointly owned by the petitioner and respondent, and the dispute between them prevented the designated authority from granting or renewing the license. The court emphasized the need for joint application or property partition for license issuance.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the license issuance, ownership and operation of 'Samci Restaurant', and the cancellation of GST registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the license is granted to the premises and not to an individual, and emphasized the requirement for joint ownership to apply for a license. The court also highlighted the need for joint application or property partition for license issuance.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition, holding that the designated authority could not grant or renew the license due to the ongoing dispute between the petitioner and respondent. The court advised the parties to settle their dispute amicably or through court intervention and emphasized the need for joint application or property partition for license issuance.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved of and has challenged the following orders:-
i) License dated 15th May, 2019 issued by the Designated Officer/State Licensing Authority under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 [“the Act”] in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of “Samci Restaurant”, Residency Road, Srinagar.
ii) Communication bearing No.FDA/FSSA/SGR/313-316 dated 2nd December, 2020 issued by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner is intimated that the license dated 15th May, 2019 is issued to the premises “Samci Restaurant” and not respondent No.5 and that it would be appropriate and in the interest of both the parties that the name of the petitioner is also inserted in the application form as incharge operation and person responsible for complying the conditions of the license.
iii) Order dated 16th April, 2021 issued by respondent No.2, whereby GST registration issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled w.e.f. 16th April, 2021 and a fresh registration has been issued in favour of respondent No.5.
2. Apart from assailing the aforesaid orders [“impugned orders”], the petitioner also prays for a direction to respondent No.4 to restore his license issued under the Act as also registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“GST”] forthwith with a further direction to respondent No.5 not to interfere or cause any sort of interference in the running of Samci Restaurant, Residency Road, Srinagar.
3. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner are predicated on the following factual foundation laid in the petition.
a) In the year 1993, the petitioner and respondent No.5 jointly purchased a two storeyed tin roof building along with land measuring 1844 sq. feet situate at Kothibagh Bund, Srinagar [“the subject property”] from one Mohd. Sultan R/o Gow Kadal, Maisuma, Srinagar in terms of a sale deed executed on 17th May, 1993. It is, however, the case of the petitioner that the entire consideration amount was paid by him and the name of respondent No.5 being his brother was also included in the sale deed as vendee, though, he had not paid even a single penny towards purchase of the subject property.
b) The petitioner further claims that the subject property was rebuilt into a six storeyed building and in the ground floor whereof, he started running a restaurant under the name and style of Samci Restaurant and rest of the floors were rented out by the petitioner to different tenants.
c) The Samci Restaurant was got registered with the Srinagar Municipality by the petitioner in his own name and not only did he deposit the fee payable to the Municipality but he also incurred from his own pocket other charges as well. It was in the year 2005, M/s A.R. Traders, Residency Road Srinagar raised dispute in respect of a shop in the ground floor, claiming the same to have been purchased by him from the erstwhile owner i.e. Sh. Mohd. Sultan.
d) M/s A.R.Trader filed OWP No.933/2005 in this Court. The petitioner settled the dispute with M/s A.R.Traders and in terms whereof, the petitioner paid Rs.4,50,000/- to M/s A.R.Traders and in lieu of the said amount M/s A.R.Traders relinquished their claim and accepted the judgment of the Financial Commissioner (R), J&K as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar as valid.
e) The petitioner applied for and was granted license under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 1st November, 2006 for running the restaurant by Srinagar Municipal Corporation, the Licensing Authority. The petitioner also simultaneously obtained a certificate of registration from the Directorate of Tourism in the year 2008. The petitioner submits that he also availed loan from the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited for running the aforesaid business and in this regard got a deed of guarantee executed from respondent No.5 and one Ishtiyaq Ahmed Baba with the bank on 22nd November, 2013. Respondent No.5 no