Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Amar Bishnah Cooperative Medical Store vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 3 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 27.03.2025
Pronounced on: 03.04.2025
LPA No. 58/2025
In OWP No. 1647/2015
1. Amar Bishnah Cooperative Medical Store, Bishnah .....Appellant(s)
through Secretary
Sham Lal Sadotra, age 58 years
S/O Lt. Sh. Rattan Chand Sadotra
R/O Ward No. 12,
Tehsil Bishnah District Jammu.
2. Sham Lal Sadotra, age 58 years
S/O Lt. Sh. Rattan Chand Sadotra
R/O Ward No. 12,
Tehsil Bishnah District Jammu.
Through: Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Salil Gupta, Advocate.
Vs
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
through Commissioner Secretary
Health and Medical Education
Department, Jammu.
2. Director Health Services, Jammu.
3. Chief Medical Officer, Jammu.
4. Block Medical Officer, Bishnah.
5. Surinder Sharma S/O Lt. Sh. Behari
Lal Sharma R/O Village Patti,
Tehsil & District Samba.
6. Bishnah Medical Cooperative
Consumer Store, Limited Bishnah.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG for R-1 to 4.
Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate for R-5.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
2 LPA No. 58/2025
JUDGMENT
(PER: M A CHOWDHARY-J)
01. Through the medium of this Letters Patent Appeal,
judgment dated 29.01.2025 passed in OWP No.
1647/2015 titled “Surinder Sharma Vs. State & ors“
whereby the petition was allowed by the learned Single
Judge, has been challenged.
02. The impugned judgment has been assailed on the
grounds that the same is erroneous, perverse and
contrary to the factual position and is required to be set
aside; that the impugned judgment has been passed
without hearing the appellant, who was respondent No. 6
in the writ petition as Mr. Ashok Basotra, Advocate, who
appeared on his behalf, could not have appeared as he
had never been authorized by him and the appellant had
no knowledge about the pendency of the writ petition;
that the impugned judgment has been passed on the
basis of the judgment dated 26.07.2022 given by the writ
court in the case titled “Kathua Cooperative Marketing
Society Ltd., Kathua Vs. State & Ors” (OWP No.
969/2013), however, the said judgment was not
applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the
case, as the same was distinguishable on facts as the
petitioner, in that case, was never allotted a shop in the
3 LPA No. 58/2025
premises of the District Hospital, Kathua in accordance
with any government order nor there was any allotment
by any competent authority and the land was only
earmarked for the said petitioner, who constructed the
shop, out of his own funds and was paying monthly rent
for the use and occupation of the said shop whereas, in
the present case, the shop in question had been duly
allotted to the appellant vide Government Order No. 118-
HME of 1997 dated 05.02.1997 and the legal status of
the appellant was squarely covered by the Government
Order No. 492-HME of 2008 dated 17.06.2008; that the
appellant was entitled as per the aforesaid Government
Order No. 492-HME of 2008 dated 17.06.2008 to be
considered for extension of another two years on payment
of premium equivalent to 50% of the market price to be
determined by the Standing Committee with 30%
increase in rent within 30 days of issuance of Letter of
Intent, which was not provided to the appellant; that
otherwise there had been no loss to the public exchequer
as the appellant had paid regular rent till 31.01.2025 to
the respondent No. 4, in accordance with the market
rate, which was revised after every two years in
accordance with the Government Order and that there
was no equitable consideration in passing the impugned
order as the case of the appellant was squarely covered
4 LPA No. 58/2025
by the Government Order No. 492-HME of 2008 dated
17.06.2008.
03. Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Salil Gupta, Advocate appearing for the appellant, in
line with the grounds taken in the appeal has vehemently
argued that the appellant had been running the fair price
shop in the premises of Sub District Hospital, Bishnah
since 13.02.1997 and the agreement having been
renewed from time to time raising the rent as well,
therefore, the appellant had satisfied all the conditions of
the Government Orders issued from time to time more so,
Government Order No. 492-HME of 2008 dated
17.06.2008.
04. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
mainly is that as per the aforesaid Government Order of
2008, those who have got allotment without auction as is
the case of the appellant, can be considered for extension
for another two years, on payment of premium equivalent
to 50% of the market price, to be determined by the
Standing Committee, with 30% increase in rent within
thirty days of issuance of Letter of Intent; that the
extension shall be subject to the condition that the
allottee shall give bank guarantee equal to the amount of
premium for six years and undertaking on stamp papers
5 LPA No. 58/2025
to vacate the premises after the expiry of the extended
period of allotment.
05. He has further argued that the appellant offers for being
considered for extension of another two years on payment
of the revised premium and the increase of rent as per
the aforesaid Government Order, which has been denied
to the appellant in view of the impugned judgment and
hence prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside,
directing the respondents to consider the appellant in
accordance with the aforesaid Government order for
extension of two years subject to the conditions specified
in the applicable Government Order.
06. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the
learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant, on the
ground that the appellant had been allotted a fair price
shop in Sub District Hospital, Bishnah way back in 1997
without any auction and the appellant still wants to
continue with the same arrangement even after a period
of 28 years. They have argued that the public property
cannot be allowed to be plundered and it is the Govt.
policy to go for auction of such properties, so as to earn
the maximum revenue and the plea raised by the
appellant primarily to be considered for another two
6 LPA No. 58/2025
years is not justifiable in any manner and prayed that the
appeal be dismissed and the impugned order be upheld
as the same does not suffer from any illegality.
07. This is an admitted fact that the appellant, as per his
own admission, had been allotted the shop in 1997
without any auction and by entering into an agreement,
which was later on revised and at one stage by Rogi
Kalyan Committee headed by local MLA, the allotment
was extended. It appears that the appellant had been
managing the allotment of the fair price shop, which is a
Govt. property in connivance with the local Block Medical
Officers and also the local legislator, who is heading the
Rogi Kalayan Committee, for his own designs.
08. The respondents, in terms of Govt. Order No. 118-HME of
1997 dated 05.02.1997, had opened fair price shops in
the premises of Sub District Hospital, Bishnah as per the
terms and conditions specified in the annexures to the
Govt. Order and the appellant was given fair price shop
by way of an agreement on 13.02.1997 and thereafter on
some occasions, the rents were stated to have been
increased as per the terms and conditions.
09. It appears that the respondents have remained oblivious
to the Govt. Order No. 492-HME of 2008 dated
17.06.2008, which clearly provided for the procedure to
7 LPA No. 58/2025
be followed for allotment of structures/sites in the
hospitals including fair price medical shops, providing
that all the allotments shall be made through auction by
inviting sealed bids from general public through
advertisement in leading newspapers. Standing
committees shall be constituted to fix the minimum
reserve price for the site/structure to be allotted on
licence with many other conditions.
10. It is not understandable as to why the official
respondents have not resorted to the compliance of Govt.
Order No. 492-HME of 2008 dated 17.06.2008 for such a
pretty long time. The contention of the learned senior
counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to
be considered for extension of two years, pales into
insignificance, in view of the fact that the appellant is
already holding property in question, for almost more
than two and a half decades.
11. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the grounds
raised in the memorandum of appeal, rival submissions
urged at the bar and the record made available, we are of
the considered opinion that the impugned judgment does
not suffer from any illegality, so as to warrant any kind of
intervention from this Bench.
8 LPA No. 58/2025
12. Viewed thus, the impugned judgment is thus, upheld.
Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
(M A CHOWDHARY) (TASHI RABSTAN)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU
03.04.2025
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
.....
Naresh Kumar
2025.04.03 14:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link