37 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 2006/2021 c/w OWP No. 1553/2018 WP(C) No. 1826/2019 Mukhtar Ahmad Bhat and others …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. A. H. Naik, Sr. Adv with Mr. Shabir Ali, Adv. Mr. T. H. Khawja, Adv. v/s UT of J&K and others …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakeem Aman Ali, Dy.AG Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI with Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDER 30.05.2025 Oral: 1. In all these petitions, the issue hinges around the power vested with the respondents to regulate the price of bakery and confectionary food items by invoking SO 145(E) dated 15.02.1990. 2. The respondents, through the medium of CM No. 7652/2023 in WP(C) No. 2006/2021, have stated that after seeking clarification from the Government of India, vide SO 300 dated 01.06.2023, Directorate of Srinagar/Jammu, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, all District Administrative and other enforcement agencies have been directed to refrain from issuing or enforcing any order based on SO 145(E). 3. In a nutshell, it is the stand of the respondents that after the clarification was sought from the Government of India, it was found that SO 145 (E) dated 15.02.1990 was no longer applicable in the case of the petitioners. 2 WP(C) No. 2006/2021 4. In that view of the matter, the present writ petitions to the extent of challenging the power vested with the respondents for regulating the price of bakery and confectionary food items is concerned, are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 5. So far as prayer of the petitioners of WP(C) No. 2006/2021 for refund of the fine illegally extracted from the petitioners on the basis of orders issued under the power vested in terms of SO 145(E) are concerned, the petitioners shall approach the respondents concerned with the receipt(s) for deposit of fine so as to enable the authority concerned to determine its validity and after the receipt is found to be authentic by the respondents, the respondents shall proceed in accordance with law after taking into consideration that SO 145(E) dated 15.02.1990 was not valid when the fine was imposed. 6. Disposed of. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu: 30.05.2025 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Rakesh Kumar 2025.06.02 08:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document