Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Malik vs Union Territopry Of J And K (Forest) on 2 May, 2025
S. No. 223
Supplementary list
HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 914/2025
CM(2406/2025)
GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN MALIK ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. S.R. Hussain, Advocate.
Vs.
UNION TERRITOPRY OF J AND K (FOREST) ...Respondent(s)
AND ORS
Through: Ms. Nadia Abdullah, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Senior AAG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
02.05.2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the
record.
2. While the matter was being argued, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a communication
dated 31.07.1986 which has been addressed by the DFO, Forest
Division, Shopian to the Conservator of Forests Kashmir South
Circle, Srinagar, a perusal whereof reveals that the petitioner has
applied for the renewal of the license and a request has been made for
issuance of a duplicate license in his favour so as to enable him to start
the mill afresh.
3. The aforesaid communication further reveals that the RO Shopian has
verified/inspected the site and has recommended the case of the
petitioner.
4. The communication further reveals that the mill of the petitioner was
running on water and was not functioning from 1978 till the aforesaid
communication came to be issued i.e. 31.07.1986 nor there was any
irregularity committed by the petitioner during this intervening
period.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the case of the petitioner was recommended
for renewal of the license. Since no decision was taken, the petitioner
was constrained to approach this Court in the earlier round of
litigation by virtue of writ petition preferred by the petitioner which
was registered as OWP No. 1416/1988 and was disposed of vide
Order/Judgment dated 21.09.1988 by directing the respondent
authority to treat the writ petition as representation and the
respondents were further directed to accord consideration to the
representation, as admissible under law, within a period of three
months commencing from the date of passing of the aforesaid order.
6. While parting with the aforesaid order/judgment, the Court was of the
view that during the period the matter remains active consideration of
the respondents, interim order passed by the Court was directed to
remain in operation and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed
of.
7. It is a specific case of Mr. S.R. Hussain-learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that on the strength of the order passed in the
earlier round of litigation mentioned supra, the petitioner is continuing
the saw mill at Largam Shopian as on date and till date the respondents
had not complied with the aforesaid order by taking a decision in this
regard.
8. The petitioner on the strength of the aforesaid order has continued with
the said saw mill and no objection was ever raised by the respondents
during this intervening period, however the decision in conformity with
the order passed by this court mentioned supra has not been taken.
9. The decision was required to be taken by the respondents within a period
of three months but have not been taken for more than 37 years.
10. When Mr. S.R. Hussain-learned counsel for the petitioner was
confronted with the filing of the writ petition on the same cause of action
after 37 years he did not give any satisfactory reply. However, he
submitted that the respondents are contemplating to close the saw mill
of the petitioner now. Although, no specific order has been issued in this
regard, yet it has been conveyed to the petitioner orally, and, feeling
aggrieved of the same, the instant petition has been preferred.
11. Issue notice, which is waived by Ms. Nadia Abdullah, learned Assisting
Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Senior AAG on behalf of the
respondents. She seeks and is granted two weeks' time to file response.
12. List on 23.05.2025.
13. In the meantime, respondents are also directed to apprise this Court with
regard to the decision taken in furtherance of the order/judgment passed
by this Court dated 21.09.1988 in OWP No. 1416/1988, and, in the
meanwhile, subject to objections from the other side and till next date of
hearing before the Bench, status quo as it exists today shall be
maintained.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
02.05.2025
Hilal Ahmad
