2022 Supreme(J&K) 661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.
Javaid Ahmad Akhoon and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory of JK and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 540 Of 2022, CM No. 1339 Of 2022 c/w OWP no. 828 of 2018, SWP no. 1151 of 2018, WP (C) no. 631 of 2022
Decided On : 15-12-2022
For the Petitioners: Mr. Arif Sikander.
For the Respondents: Mr Mohsin Qadri with Ms Insha Rashid.
The court emphasized that while the Government can place necessary restrictions for smooth functioning of a trade, such restrictions must not be unreasonable, particularly when aimed at regulating the trade of unemployed skilled youth.
Headnote:
Photography Trade - Regulation of Trade in Parks and Gardens - Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Tourism Act, 1978/82 - [17-Flori/G&P of 2018, 32-Flori/G&P of 2018] - The court quashed the condition of upper age limit and the deposition of annual fee of Rs. 10,000/- as unreasonable, and directed the respondents to review the condition of the annual fee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, registered photographers with the Tourism Department, challenged the Government Orders regulating the photography trade in parks and gardens issued by the Floriculture Department. The petitioners argued that the guidelines were beyond the authority of the Floriculture Department and violated their right to practice their trade.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned guidelines were issued by the Government and could place necessary restrictions for smooth functioning of a trade, but such restrictions must not be unreasonable, particularly when aimed at regulating the trade of unemployed skilled youth. The court quashed the condition of upper age limit and the deposition of annual fee of Rs. 10,000/- as unreasonable, and directed the respondents to review the condition of the annual fee.
Issues: The issues included the authority of the Floriculture Department to regulate the photography trade, the reasonableness of the guidelines, and the violation of the petitioners' right to practice their trade.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the Wednesbury principle to test the reasonableness of the guidelines and found the condition of upper age limit and the annual fee to be unreasonable, leading to their quashing.
Final Decision: The court quashed the condition of upper age limit and the deposition of annual fee of Rs. 10,000/- as unreasonable, and directed the respondents to review the condition of the annual fee.
JUDGMENT :
1. These four writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging and seeking quashment of the two Government Orders bearing No. 17-Flori/G&P of 2018 dated 23.02.2018 and 32-Flori/G&P of 2018 dated 07.06.2018, hereinafter for short as impugned orders, issued by Commissioner-Secretary to the Government, Floriculture Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/ Jammu, (respondent no. 3 in the lead case), on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petitions.
2. The two Government orders being questioned in the instant writ petitions pertain to and are aimed at to regulate the photographers’ trade in the gardens and parks of the Floriculture department. Since all the writ petitions raise a similar point for consideration, therefore, these are taken up together for disposal and this judgment shall govern all.
3. Precisely, the case of the petitioners is that they are registered photographers with the Tourism Department under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Tourism Act, 1978/82 and have been earning their livelihood by carrying out their professional activities in different tourist areas as shown in their respective registration certificates.
4. While the petitioners were carrying on such professional/ business activities, the respondent no. 3 issued certain guidelines to regulate the trade of photography in the parks and gardens vide Order No. 17-Glori/G&P of 2018 dated 23.02.2018 inter alia prescribing the age of the photographers between 21-40 years for first permission and not more than 45 years in case of renewal on 1st January of the year in which application was made.
5. Aggrieved of such stipulation prescribed in the guidelines, the petitioners challenged the same by filing writ petitions, OWP no. 828/2018; & SWP no. 1151/2018. This court, while issuing notice to the other side, in SWP no. 1151/2018, stayed the operation of the Government Order No. 17-Flori/G&P of 2018 dated 23.02.2018.
6. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the respondents, in modification of order no. 17-Flori/G&P of 2018 dated 23.02.2018, issued Government Order No. 32-Flori/G&P of 2018 dated 07.06.2018 by virtue of which the eligibility in respect of age was modified and enhanced to 60 years instead of 45 as provided earlier.
7. Aggrieved of such modification, the petitioners have filed two writ petitions, being WP (C) nos. 540/2022 and 631/2022 to challenge the same inter alia on the grounds that, a) the respondent no. 3 had no power under Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Tourism Trade Act, 1978/82 to issue the guidelines in question; b) the impugned guidelines are having the effect of overriding the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Tourism Act, 1978/82 which provides the eligibility conditions for the trade in question; c) it restricts the professionals from freely carrying on their trade amounting to violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which guarantees all citizens the right to practice or carry on any occupation, trade or business; d) the impugned order has no statutory backing to impose restrictions; e) the impugned order is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution; etc.
8. Upon notice, the respondents appeared; filed their objections and resisted the claim of the petitioners. The grounds taken in opposition to all the writ petitions are almost similar. It is inter alia stated therein that petitioners have raised disputed questions of fact; no cause of action has accrued to the petitioners as none of their right is infringed; the order impugned bearing No. 32-Flori/G&P of 2018 dated 07.06.2018 has been passed only after taking into consideration the grievances of the petitioners; the impugned order dated 23.02.2018 upon being challenged in the court of law was reviewed and modified by order dated 07.06.2018 which also has been challenged after a span of four years; the petitioners do not have a valid renewed registration as on date in terms of Tourism Trade Act 1978, therefor