Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Aijaz Ahmad Paddar vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 1 July, 2025
Serial No.158
SUPPLEMENTARY CAUSE LIST-I
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 1505/2025
CM(3855/2025)
Aijaz Ahmad Paddar. ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Showkat Ahmad Makroo, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Irfan Rasool, Advocate.
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Others. ...Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Judge.
ORDER
01.07.2025
01. Mr. Showkat Ahmad Makroo, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention
of this Court to an order bearing No. 191 JKPCC of 2022
dated 19th July, 2022, wherein a complete mechanism has
been provided with regard to the scrutinizing and
processing of online consent cases as per Single Window
Rules, 2021, Industries and Commerce Department, J&K.
02. The aforesaid order has been issued in pursuance
to the Notification S. O. 142 dated 23rd April, 2021 in
conformity with the Circular of GAD bearing No. 07-JK
(GAD) of 2022 dated 28th January, 2022 read with JKPCC
Order No. 190 JKPCC of 2022 dated 19th July, 2022.
03. From a bare perusal of the order dated 19th July,
2022, it transpires that that complete mechanism has been
given regarding receiving of e-application through online
portal of Single Window and scrutiny of cases by Essential
Document Sought (EDS) Section of JKPCC.
04. The learned Senior counsel has drawn the attention
of the Court to Clause (iii) of the aforesaid order, which
mandates that in case of incomplete cases, the same shall
also be forwarded to the applicants for completing the
deficiencies as pointed by the EDS Section and the
deficiencies, if any, in the case, shall be conveyed in one go
through Single Window Portal to the Unit Holder.
05. The learned Senior counsel has vehemently argued
that the petitioner has already applied for grant of consent
to operate vide application No. 5228027 under Section
25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974 read with Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which has been refused vide
communication dated 14th June, 2025, which was the basis
for passing of the order dated 24th June, 2025 bearing No.
69 JKPCC of 2025, which is impugned in the present
petition.
06. Through the medium of the aforesaid order dated
24th June, 2025 which is impugned in the present petition,
the following directions have been issued.
i. Deputy Commissioner/ District Magistrate,
Kulgam shall close down the stone crusher
under the name and style of M/s Moonlight
Stone Crusher, Adijan, DH Pora-District Kulgam
immediately.
ii. Director Industries and Commerce, Kashmir
shall de-register the stone crusher, if registered.
iii. Executive Engineer, (KPDCL) Electric Division,
Kulgam shall disconnect the electric supply to
above said stone crusher.
iv. Executive Engineer, PHE, Kulgam shall
disconnect the water supply to the above said
stone crusher.
v. Aijaz Ahmad Padder, Prop. M/s Moonlight Stone
Crusher, Adijan, DH Pora-District Kulgam is
directed to cease the operation of the stone
crusher, forthwith.
07. It is specific case of the learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner although the same has not been pleaded, that
the respondents have not followed the procedure as
prescribed in terms of Order to bearing No. 191 JKPCC of
2022 dated 19th July, 2022, in its letter and spirit and the
respondents were under a legal obligation qua the petitioner
to have pointed out the deficiencies, if any, to the petitioner
within the reasonable time, which in the instant case has
not happened and instead, the respondents have passed the
order impugned, whereby a direction has been issued to the
Deputy Commissioner concerned to close down the stone
crusher (M/S Moonlight Stone Crusher) and no breathing
time has been given to the petitioner to remove the
deficiencies in conformity with the prescribed procedure and
to the contrary, final decision has been taken to close down
the stone crusher, which has caused grave prejudice to the
petitioner.
08. It has been further argued by the learned Senior
counsel that had the deficiencies been pointed out to the
petitioner within the reasonable time inconformity with the
aforesaid order, then the petitioner would have removed
those deficiencies well in time, however, no opportunity was
provided to the petitioner to remove the deficiencies in
conformity the aforesaid order, as such, the order impugned
cannot sustain the test of law and is liable to be quashed. It
is further submitted that the respondents have not followed
the procedure laid down in terms of order supra, in its letter
and spirit and instead, have proceeded to close the unit of
the petitioner in derogation to the mandate of the policy
framed by the Government.
09. Prima facie case for indulgence is made out.
10. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within a
period of four weeks.
11. Requisite steps for service within one week.
12. List on 5th August, 2025.
13. In the meantime, subject to objections from the
other side and till the next date of hearing before the Bench,
the operation of impugned order bearing No. 69 JKPCC of
2025 dated 24th June, 2025 shall remain stayed.
14. Modification/Vacation/Alteration on motion.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
SRINAGAR:
01.07.2025
“HAMID”
[ad_1]
Source link