Khalida Jan vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 661 j&K/2

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT SRINAGAR


                            OWP No. 712/2017

                                                    Reserved On:19th of March, 2023
                                                   Pronounced On: 26th of May, 2023

Khalida Jan
                                                              ... Petitioner(s)
                               Through: -
                      Mr N. A. Tabassum, Advocate.

                                    V/s

State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.
                                                           ... Respondent(s)

Through: -

Mr Satinder Singh Kala, AAG; and Mr Faheem Nisar Shah, Government Advocate.

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Judge.

(JUDGMENT)

01. The petitioner claims to have availed a loan to the tune of Rs.3.00 lacs from the respondent No.3. It is stated that after receiving the financial assistance, the petitioner established a Dry Fruit Unit under the banner of 'M/s Khalida Dry Fruits', Magam and purchased walnuts, nuts (giri) worth Rs. 7.00 lacs in the year 2014. While the consignment of 6 quintals of dry fruits was being transported to a market at Amritsar, through forwarding Agency 'M/s Pyaralal Kashmiri Lal Company', due to blockade of national highway, the load carrier/ truck carrying the consignment was stuck between Ramsu and Ramban portion of the National Highway, as a result whereof, the whole dry fruit of the petitioner got damaged. The petitioner further claims to have filed various representations for grant of compensation on account of loss suffered by her and the petitioner further has placed on record various communications made to different authorities, including the representation made to Secretary, Women's Development Corporation requesting her to examine the case and take appropriate action, OWP No. 712/2017

strictly in accordance with rules. While the case of the petitioner was under consideration of the respondents, the Block Veterinary Officer, Rohama stopped the salary of the guarantor of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 also started sending communications/ notices to the petitioner, thereby asking her to liquidate the loan amount. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction upon the respondents to release the compensation and relief in favour of the petitioner for the loss suffered by her and further commanding the respondent No.3 to waive off the loan raised by the petitioner for the establishment of the Dry Fruit Unit.

02. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their reply have stated that disputed questions of facts cannot be considered and determined by this Court while adjudicating the writ petition. It is also stated that the Jammu and Kashmir Women's Development Corporation is running its affairs under the prescribed procedure and the Corporation does not have any provision in its rules for waiving off a loan after its sanction. It is also stated that no policy, as claimed by the petitioner for granting relief, has been formulated or conveyed to the Corporation in this regard.

03. The respondent No.5 to 6 have also filed response, stating therein that the pay of the official concerned was withheld so as to impress upon the guarantor for liquidation of the loan, however, the pay of the official was subsequently released.

04. Mr N. A. Tabassum, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the petitioner has suffered huge loss, but the respondents have neither compensated the petitioner nor the Jammu and Kashmir Women's Development Corporation has waived off the loan.

05. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, submits that the present petition is misconceived and that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to under which policy the petitioner is required to be compensated and further that the loan cannot be waived off as there is no provision for waiving off the loan.

OWP No. 712/2017

06. Heard and perused the record.

07. A perusal of the record reveals that vide communication dated 23rd of November, 2015, the petitioner was already intimated by the respondent No.3 that there is no provision for waiving off the loan availed by the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate before this Court any policy framed by the Government for consideration of such claims as projected by the petitioner in the present petition. Furthermore, the petitioner has raised disputed questions of facts and there is nothing on record, except certain communications, to indicate that the petitioner has suffered loss because of the blockade of the Jammu-Srinagar National Highway, as such, this Court does not find any reason whatsoever to show indulgence in the present case.

08. In view of above, this petition is, thus, found to be misconceived. The same is, accordingly, dismissed, along with the connected CM(s). Interim direction(s), if any, subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated.

(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge SRINAGAR May 26th, 2023 "TAHIR"

                 Whether the Judgment is reportable?            No.