Sadiya Sidiq vs. Union Territory Of J And K (Revenue) And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Sadiya Sidiq Lone, applied for an Economically Weaker Section (EWS) certificate, claiming her family's gross annual income was Rs. 1,20,000, well below the Rs. 8,00,000 threshold. Her application was rejected by Respondent No. 3 on 02.11.2024, based on a Patwari's report stating her father owned a three-storeyed house on five marlas of land. The petitioner argued this property was jointly inherited and her father's share fell below the disqualifying asset limits under Rule 21 of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005. She also noted that EWS certificates had been issued to her for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The petitioner contended the rejection was arbitrary, lacked an opportunity for her to present evidence, and was based on erroneous findings.

Held

The Court held that the impugned rejection order was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the respondents issued the rejection order without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without recording reasons. The Court emphasized that revenue entries/mutations do not create or extinguish title and only serve a fiscal purpose, citing Supreme Court judgments in Balwant Singh and another vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs and Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner. The Court found it significant that EWS certificates had been previously issued to the petitioner for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24, and the rejection order did not explain how circumstances had changed. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. to assert that the existence of an alternative remedy does not preclude writ jurisdiction when principles of natural justice are violated. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for the EWS certificate, taking into account the previously issued certificates and the Court's observations, within 15 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for an EWS certificate by Respondent No. 3 on 02.11.2024, based on a Patwari's report regarding jointly inherited property, was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, particularly in light of previously issued EWS certificates for the petitioner for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24, and whether this warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the availability of a statutory appeal under Rule 25 of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary as it disregarded her family's income and the jointly inherited nature of the property, which, when apportioned, did not disqualify her. She contended that the respondents failed to provide an opportunity for her to present evidence and that the Patwari's report was erroneous. The petitioner also highlighted that EWS certificates were previously issued, indicating a change in circumstances was not established. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others regarding the exercise of writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedies. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the rejection order implies reliance on the Patwari's report concerning property ownership.