Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 203 (JK)

Sabir Hussain v. State Of J. &K.

2006-09-18

J.P.SINGH

body2006
1. Sabir Hussain, petitioner, has filed this petition to seek a command of mandamus to the respondents to release the migrant relief in terms of money and ration with retrospective effect from July, 1998, in favour of the petitioner on the same analogy as was adopted in case of other migrants. Background facts: 2. The petitioner, a resident of Gadvail, a highly militancy infested area of District Anantnag, was compelled to migrate alongwith his family from his native village under threat perception. He settled at village Nud Amli of Tehsil Samba in District Jammu and started putting up in a hut. His registration as migrant was regularized after the receipt of threat perception certificate No.CID/ORG-1/97-6972 dated 23.08.1997 from Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., Jammu. Verification was thereafter carried out and a ration card was issued to the petitioner, who started receiving relief including ration for his destitute family. This, however, continued only upto June, 1998. The stoppage of the migrant relief started telling upon the miseries of the sourceless family of the petitioner which then comprised of nine souls. The relief authority, in order to consider the request of the petitioner to continue providing relief to him, started re-verification as to whether or not the petitioner and his family had migrated. The case of the petitioner appears to have been cleared by C.I.D., Kashmir, when it, vide its No.CID/MR/MIG/3832 dated 08.01.2001 informed the authorities that the petitioner could not be located on his address in Kashmir valley. Petitioners grievance, in nutshell, is that for the last more than five years, petitioner has been deprived of the relief, which was being paid to the persons similarly situated and all this had happened because of the inaction of the respondents. 3. The respondents admit the provisional registration of the petitioner as migrant for nine souls under political category. Their case, as projected in the objections filed through Relief Commissioner (M) Jammu, is that the Relief benefits were stopped to the petitioner and his family, pending receipt of information authenticating migration of the family of the petitioner under threat perception by the Criminal Investigation Department. It is admitted by the respondents that although the C.I.D. had indicated that the petitioner could not be traced on his address in Kashmir valley, yet no information was received from the department as to whether the petitioner had migrated from the valley. It is admitted by the respondents that although the C.I.D. had indicated that the petitioner could not be traced on his address in Kashmir valley, yet no information was received from the department as to whether the petitioner had migrated from the valley. Relief Commissioner (M) Jammu, has, pursuant to the interim direction of this Court, passed communication No.RCM/Legal/1523-31 dated 26.05.2005, wherein it has been stated that continuation of migration registration of the family of the petitioner shall be considered after authentication of migration of the family of the petitioner under threat perception by the C.I.D. and physical verification that the family resides in Jammu. Submissions On behalf of petitioner: 4. Sh. Z. S. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that petitioners poverty has come in his way in getting the relief for feeding his family when similarly situated persons had since been enjoying the benefit of relief sanctioned by the State Government for those who had migrated from the valley. Learned counsel adds that the petitioner has become a victim of apathy and inaction of the respondents, who have deprived the petitioner and his family of their right to life. On behalf of respondents: 5. Sh. A. H. Qazi, learned Addl. AG appearing for the respondents, submitted that the respondents had been waiting for the C.I.D. report and as and when the C.I.D. report was received, they would not be averse to release the migrant relief to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on records by the parties. 7. Provisional registration of the petitioner and his family members as migrants and release of relief benefits to them stands admitted by the respondents in their communication No. RCM/Legal/1523-31 dated 26.05.2005. This communication further admits that the petitioner was not found at his given address in Kashmir valley. 8. Respondents have not placed anything on records to indicate either any complaint or any document to rebut the case of the petitioner that he had migrated to Jammu and was putting up at village Nud Amli of Tehsil Samba. Present place of shelter of the petitioner has been specifically pleaded by him in the petition. The respondents neither dispute this fact nor had they taken any steps to verify the shelter of the petitioner at village Nud Amli of Tehsil Samba. 9. Present place of shelter of the petitioner has been specifically pleaded by him in the petition. The respondents neither dispute this fact nor had they taken any steps to verify the shelter of the petitioner at village Nud Amli of Tehsil Samba. 9. Last C.I.D. report received by the respondents is of 08.01.2001. Respondents inaction and omission to verify the place of shelter of the petitioner in village Nud Amli of Tehsil Samba, would not, in my opinion, provide any justification to the respondents to refuse continuation of relief to the petitioner, which had provisionally been sanctioned in his favour on his provisional registration as migrant. 10. Registration of a person as migrant and grant of facilities to him/her in terms of the Government orders issued in this behalf for his/her sustenance, cannot be discontinued unless, however, there is sufficient proof or reasons to believe that the provisional relief allowed to the migrant was required to be suspended, pending any inquiry in this behalf. Five years silence of the respondents and their long wait to receive report from the C.I.D. of J&K, is unjustified, for the intention of the State Government in providing relief to those who had migrated under threat perception from the Kashmir valley to other places in the State would be denuded of its required purpose, if inquiry for continuance of already allowed relief was to pend for years together. I, therefore, find that the petitioner has been denied relief by the respondents and that too without any justifiable reasons. 11. Disentitling the petitioner to the migrant relief permissible under the Government orders, until something comes on records which may debar him to get such relief, would be unjustified besides being unwarranted. 12. I, therefore, find that the petitioner has been deprived of his earned right to receive relief as a migrant from Kashmir valley. He is held entitled to the continuance of the relief, which he had been getting pursuant to his provisional registration as migrant. Conclusion: 13. This petition is, accordingly, allowed and the respondents are commanded to treat the petitioner as migrant. They shall continue to release migrant relief to him in terms of the government orders issued in this behalf from time to time. Respondents are further directed to release the arrears of relief benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 1998 when it was discontinued.