Regular
S. No. 34
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 282/2020
CM(4823/2023) CM(504/2020)
Taxi Sumo Stand No. 1 Mahndi Kadal
… Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Ms. Saima Mehboob, Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K and others
… Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Illyas Laway, Advocate
Mr. Rais ud Din Ganai, DAG
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
O R D E R
31-05-2024
Oral
1. Petitioner herein has maintained the instant petition through
its President under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking
reliefs detailed out in the petition on the premise that it is
providing transportation facility to the general public at
Anantnag since 1962 operating from a piece of land
measuring 17 marlas having vested unto it pursuant to a
mutation attested thereto and is also registered by the
competent authority which registration stands renewed from
time to time. A lease agreement is also stated to have been
entered into by the petitioner Sumo Stand with respondent 2
qua the land in question on payment of initial rent of
WP (C) 282 of 2020 Page 2 of 5
Rs.58,080 with 10% increase thereof having been deposited
without any fail and that the operation of the said Sumo Stand
came to be regulated by the respondents in the year 2017
providing for operating the same through western gate of the
Sumo Stand opening on the Byepass while closing down the
eastern gate upon a unanimous decision in order to avoid
traffic jams in the town and that the respondent 3 despite that
arrangement, issued impugned order dated 3.2.2020 calling
upon the petitioner to shift the Sumo Stand to Mahandi Kadal
(New Byepass) on the new earmarked piece of land adjacent
to the police station Saddar Anantnag.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order dated
3.2.2020 has filed instant petition on multiple grounds
fundamentally on the ground that the impugned order is
arbitrary in nature having been issued at the back of the
petitioner.
3. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondent 4
wherein it is being stated that the impugned order came to be
issued by respondent 3 with the consent of the District
Administration owing to the heavy traffic jams being
witnessed in and around the petitioner Sumo Stand causing
inconvenience to the public in general beside choking arterial
roads in and around the petitioner Sumo Stand in particular
the road leading to the District Hospital Anantnag/Associated
Hospitals of Government Medical College, Anantnag as also
WP (C) 282 of 2020 Page 3 of 5
the roads leading to the Districts of Shopian, Kulgam and
Pulwama. It is being further submitted that the petitioner
Sumo Stand came to be established in the year 2008 and a
registration for its operation was consequently accorded,
which registration, however, expired on 21.12.2019
whereafter the said registration was not renewed as a
consequence whereof the vehicles are being operated from the
said stand without any authority. It is being further stated in
the objections that on account of the aforesaid reasons and in
fact in public interest, the petitioner Sumo Stand was ordered
to be relocated and notwithstanding the expiry of its
registration came to be allotted land measuring one kanal at
Mahandi Kadal barely 100 meters away from the original
Sumo Stand and that the petitioner Sumo Stand instead of
shifting over to new place has occupied the new stand besides
continuing to operate from the old stand.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. While making his submissions, the counsel for the petitioner
would reiterate the contentions raised and grounds urged in
the petition and would pray for grant of reliefs sought in the
petition, whereas on the contrary counsel for respondent 4
would insist for the dismissal of the petition more particularly
in the light of the judgement of a Division Bench of this court
passed in case titled as Kashmir Consumer Welfare
“
WP (C) 282 of 2020 Page 4 of 5
Forum Vs. Commissioner Transport and Others being
”
OWP 458/2003, wherein multiple directions/orders have been
passed requiring the official respondents to regulate the flow
of traffic in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and
take all necessary steps and measures in this regard.
5. Though the objections have not been filed by the respondents
1 to 3 to the petition yet the counsel appearing for respondents
1 to 3 during the course of hearing adopted the objections
filed by respondent 4 to the petition.
6. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that the official
respondents provided an alternative piece of land for the
Sumo Stand in question, which is approximately hundred
metres away from the original stand. It is also not being
denied by the petitioner that the registration of the original
Sumo Stand stands expired on 31.12.2019 for operating from
the old stand.
7. Admittedly the issue raised in the instant petition by the
petitioner pertains to a policy matter wherein the scope of
interference by this court under Article 226 is limited as has
been held by the Apex Court in case titled as ederation of
“F
Railway Officers Association Vs. Union of India
’ ”
inter alia,
reported in (2003) 4 SCC 289 wherein it has been,
held that unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the
Constitution and the laws or is arbitrary or irrational or there
WP (C) 282 of 2020 Page 5 of 5
is abuse of power, the court will not interfere with such
matters.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid position of law inasmuch as
the nature of issue(s) raised at in the instant petition being
relating to the policy matter, this court is not inclined to
display indulgence and to exercise discretion under Article
226 of the Constitution. Resultantly, the petition fails and is
dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
Srinagar
31-05-2024
N Ahmad
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Nissar Ahmad Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
12.06.2024 12:48