Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3753 (JK)

MOHD SHABIR v. UT OF J AND K TH COMMISIONER SECRETARY FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS JAMMU AND OTHERS

WP(C)/1692/2025 · 2025-07-07

Rahul Bharti

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- WP(C) No. 1692/2025 CM No. 3866/2025 Cav No. 1103/2025 Mohd. Shabir, Age 56 years S/o Mohd. Ismail, R/o Village Gursai, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch (UT of J&K). …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar Parihar, Advocate. Vs 1. Union Territory of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Jammu. 3. Assistant Director, FCS &CA, Poonch. 4. Tehsil Supply Officer (TSO), Mendhar, District Poonch. 5. Irshad Ahmed, S/o Lal Din, R/o Village Gursai, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch. 6. Ghulam Jeelani, S/o Mohd. Rashid, R/o Village Gursai, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER (07.07.2025) 1. After arguing for a while when pointed out that the respondent No. 5-Irshad Ahmed against whom the petitioner acting as a representative of village Gursai, tehsil Mendhar, district Poonch has come forward with the present representative writ petition bearing the grievance that the respondent No. 5 is not duly authorized ration dealer, is an appointed ration dealer in terms of Serial No. 135 2 WP(C) No. 1692/2025 Order No. 483-CA&PD/Plg. of 2007 dated 05.10.2007 passed by the Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department thereby appointing the respondent No. 5-Irshad Ahmed as ration dealer for upper Gursai, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would revisit the stand of the residents of the village Gursai with respect to actual status of the respondent No. 5 as ration dealer with continuation of his dealership and, therefore, seeks withdrawal of this writ petition which is allowed. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn. 3. This Court has put Mr. Rohit Kumar Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner on caution that in future he should be vigilant and not to come up with annexures to the writ petition which by no stretch of claim can be said to be public document as is annexure-V to the writ petition. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 07.07.2025 Shivalee Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Shivalee Khajuria 2025.07.14 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document