Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 279 (JK)

Ram Rakha & 2 Ors. v. State Of J&K & 3 Ors.

2003-09-12

S.K.GUPTA

body2003
1. A short submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that on a complaint made by one Bodh Raj, resident of Nanak Nagar, Jammu, before Deputy Commissioner that the petitioners Ram Rakha and his two sons are the residents of Punjab and the permanent Resident Certificate obtained by them are fake, an enquiry was initiated by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. It is also stated that during inquiry, no opportunity was provided to the petitioners to lead evidence, documentary or oral, and made a recommendation to the Secretary to Government (Respondent-1) for cancellation of the Permanent Resident Certificates issued in favour of the petitioners vide communication, which came to be challenged by the petitioners and sought its quashment by issuance of a writ of certiorari. 2. The respondents have not filed counter. The main argument put across by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the recommendation made by Respondent-3 is arbitrary and illegal and deserve no consideration. It is further submitted that constitution of the commission to enquire into the matters of obtaining Permanent resident certificates by non - state subjects and issuance thereof by the authority in contravention of the provisions of The Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Permanent Resident Certificates (procedure) Act, 1963 (hereinafter for short referred to as "The J&K PRC Act, 1963), no enquiry could be initiated on a complaint of Bodh Raj and recommendation made for cancellation without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to refute/ rebut the allegation in the complaint by producing documentary and oral evidence. 3. Mr. A.M.Qazi, AAG however, submitted that the petition is not maintainable against recommendation for cancellation and referred to the provisions of section 6 of the J&K PRC Act, 1963 in support of his contention. For facility of reference, section 6 of the J&K PRC Act 1963 is produced as under: "6. 3. Mr. A.M.Qazi, AAG however, submitted that the petition is not maintainable against recommendation for cancellation and referred to the provisions of section 6 of the J&K PRC Act, 1963 in support of his contention. For facility of reference, section 6 of the J&K PRC Act 1963 is produced as under: "6. Revision .----- (i) The Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application made to it in this behalf, call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by a competent authority and maya uphold or reverse the order of the competent authority or may pass any other order or give any directions as it may deem fit: Provided that no orders prejudicial to an interested person shall be passed without giving such a person a reasonable opportunity to be heard. (1) "if it appears to a competent authority that a substantial question of law or public interest is involved in any proceedings under this Act, it may report it to the Government and the government may pass any orders or issue any directions, it may deem fit." 4. A plain reading of the section clearly contemplates that the Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application, call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by the competent authority or give any directions as are required in the matter. It further refers to affording of reasonable opportitunity of being heard inter se parties. In the present case, the competent authority as per communication addressed to the government clearly pointed out that enquiry was made by the office, but the non- applicants (herein petitioners) did not produce any evidence to show that their father/grand -father were permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir State prior to 1942 Bk. The recommendation made by the competent authority to the Government under Section 6 of the J&K PRC Act 1963 vide impugned communication is treated as revision, which is still pending under this provision and admitted to be pending before it If this be the petition., all the grounds urged and pleas taken in this petition are available to the petitioners to be projected before the Government. 5. 5. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition, therefore, is not maintainable when revision before the Government with regard to the impugned recommendation for the cancellation of petitioners permanent Resident Certificate is admittedly not yet disposed of and pending. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in this petition and is accordingly dismissed.