M/S Grand Jannat Bakery v. Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Environment and Forest)

ORDER

20.05.2025

CM No. 2988/2025

¶1The instant application has been filed by the petitioner for taking on record copy of WP(C) No. 860/2025 and order dated 21.04.2025 passed therein.

¶2For the reasons stated in the application coupled with what has been argued, the same is allowed and the copy of WP(C) No. 860/2025 alongwith order dated 21.04.2025 passed therein, appended with the application is taken on record subject to all just exceptions in terms of order dated

06.05.2025.

¶3CM disposed of.

WP(C) 1018/2025

¶1While the matter was being argued, Mr. M. M. Shah, learned counsel was confronted with the fact that he has filed a writ petition in the first round of litigation, wherein order dated

21.04.2025has been passed, however, neither the copy of the said writ petition nor the copy of the order has been placed on record. Accordingly, Mr. M. M. Shah, learned counsel

was directed to place on record the copy of the writ petiton preferred by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation and also the order passed by this court therein.

¶2In compliance to the aforesaid order dated 06.05.2025, Mr. M. M. Shah, learned counsel has filed the present application bearing CM No. 2988/2025 for placing on record the requisite documents,a perusal whereof reveals that in the earlier round of litigation, petitioner had sought the following relief; "Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not

to cause any interference in the smooth functioning of the

petitioner's unit. Writ of certiorari to quash the order impugned bearing order

No. 134-JKPCC of 2023 dated 21.11.2023 annexed herewith

as Annexure-I by virtue whereof the closure of the petitioners

unit has been ordered."

¶3However, the said writ petition was dismissed by this court on 21.04.2025 for the reason that the case of the petitioner stood rejected on the count that the petitioner has not submitted the requisite documents, NOCs from Tehsildar concerned and Srinagar Municipal Corporation.

¶4Confronted with the same, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought withdrawal of the said writ petition with a liberty to file fresh one if cause survives. In the aforesaid backdrop, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty as prayed for.

¶5It is a specific case of the petitioner through the medium of the present writ petition, which is by way of second round of litigation, that the petitioner has removed the deficiencies in terms of the aforesaid order and yet the respondents have not granted 'consent to operate the unit'.Inspite of the fact that the petitioner has filed the requisite application on

22.04.2025 alongwith all the requisite documents including certificate/NOCs from Srinagar Municipal Corporation and since, no action was taken by the competent authority, the petitioner feeling aggrieved of the inaction on part of the

respondents, has filed the instant petition. However, the petitioner through the medium of the instant petition is also seeking quashment of order dated 21.11.2023 bearing No. 134-JKPCC of 2023 by virtue of which the unit of the petitioner stood closed which was also the subject matter of the earlier writ petition.

¶6When learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the fact that why the aforesaid order was not called in question in 2023, learned counsel for the petitioner replied that the petitioner has already challenged the aforesaid order by filing the writ petition mentioned supra which was dismissed for the reason that the petitioner has not obtained the requisite NOCs from the various authorities and since the petitioner has now completed all the requisite formalities and has obtained the requisite NOCs, and a duty is cast upon the respondents to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the rules governing the field. Since the respondents have not taken a decision in terms of the rules in vogue, the petitioner was left with no other option but to file the instant petition.

¶7After arguing for a while, Mr. M. M. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would feel satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents in particular the Pollution Control Board to accord due consideration strictly in terms of the rules within some reasonable period to which Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Sr. AAG appearing on behalf of the respondents on asking of the court, is not averse provided the same is directed to be accordedstrictly under rules and as per laws.

¶8With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage without issuing formal notice to the respondents. Accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to accord due consideration to the case of the petitioner for grant of consent to operatethe unit for

which the petitioner has applied by way of an online application dated 26.04.2025, alongwith, all requisite documents including certificate/NOC from the Srinagar Municipal Corporation within a period of six weeks from the date copy of this order alongwith the writ petition and Annexures are made available to the said respondents. However, the accord of consideration and issuance of NOCs will be subject to the fulfillment of all the requisite formalities envisaged under law. The order of consideration which is likely to be passed be forwarded to the petitioner through registered post.

¶9The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.

(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)

JUDGE

SRINAGAR

20.05.2025 Sakeena

S. No. 158 Supp. Cause List IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1018/2025 CM(2672/2025) CM(2988/2025) M/S GRAND JANNAT BAKERY …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. M. Shah, Adv. Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAGwith Ms. Nadiya Abdullah, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE