Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 426 (JK)

Sultan Ali v. State

2017-07-25

ALOK ARADHE, SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No.273/2017 by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.3 has been disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation dated 24.11.2016 submitted by the respondent No.3 in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned Single Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had set up a brick-kiln for which the licence No.43 dated 03.03.2009 was obtained under Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulations) Act, 2010 under the name and style of Peer Baba Brick Kiln Industry. The aforesaid brick kiln is comprised in Khasra No.157 situate at Chack Sajjan, Tehsil and District Kathua of which the appellant and his brother are the owners. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 has no right, title or interest in respect of the aforesaid brick kiln. However, without impleading the appellant, he has filed the writ petition and has obtained an order seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the representation. 4. On the other hand, learned Dy. AG submits that while deciding the representation submitted by the respondent No.3, the petitioner shall also be heard. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The appellant claims to be the proprietor of the brick kiln in question and has obtained the licence. Therefore, in case the representation submitted by the respondent No.3 is decided in his absence, he would be condemned unheard. In the fact situation of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.03.2017 and to direct the Deputy Commission, Kathua to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well while deciding the representation submitted by the respondent No.3. In the fact situation of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.03.2017 and to direct the Deputy Commission, Kathua to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well while deciding the representation submitted by the respondent No.3. Needless to state that the appellant as well as respondent No.3 shall also be afforded an opportunity of hearing before deciding the representation and the question of title, locus and delay with regard the staking the claim in respect of the brick kiln shall also be examined by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua while deciding the representation which may be submitted by the respondent No.3. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim of the respective parties. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of.