The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the licensing requirement for traders dealing in imported bricks, ruling that the Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010 and the 2017 Rules apply equally to manufacturers and dealers. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal held that the authorities were well within their powers to seize consignments transported without a licence and rejected the argument that GST registration alone was sufficient compliance. The Court also noted that the petitioners had bypassed the statutory appellate remedy, making the writ petition premature.

Legal Issue

Whether dealers importing and trading in finished bricks from outside Jammu & Kashmir are required to obtain licences under the Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010, and the Rules of 2017, and whether such a requirement infringes the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Brief Facts 

The petitioners, including Kehar Singh and others, are brick dealers who import finished bricks from other States into the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. Their vehicles and consignments were seized by the District Magistrates of Kathua and Samba on the ground that they were operating without the licences required under the Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010 and the Rules of 2017. The petitioners challenged these orders as arbitrary and beyond the scope of the Act, arguing that the legislation regulates only brick kiln owners engaged in manufacturing within the UT, not traders who merely import and sell finished bricks. They contended that the seizures violated their right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) and led to double regulation, since they were already registered under the GST regime. The respondents defended their actions, asserting that the Act’s definition of “dealer” covers all persons engaged in the sale of bricks and that the licensing requirement applies equally to manufacturers and traders to prevent unchecked and unregulated trade.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court first addressed the licensing requirement and held that Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules clearly extends the mandate to both manufacturers and dealers, making it applicable to anyone involved in the business of selling or storing bricks. It emphasised that the statutory scheme treats manufacturers and traders alike for regulatory purposes. On the question of authority, the Court noted that Section 5 of the 2010 Act read with Rule 4 of the Rules designates the Deputy Commissioners as Licensing Authorities empowered to enforce compliance, including seizing vehicles transporting bricks without a licence. The Court also rejected the petitioners’ claim that GST registration was sufficient, clarifying that the GST Act deals with taxation, whereas the Brick Kiln Act regulates the brick trade itself; the two operate in distinct spheres, and compliance with one does not exempt a dealer from the other. It further observed that the petitioners had bypassed the statutory appellate remedy under Section 20 and approached the High Court prematurely. As for the Article 19(1)(g) challenge, the Court held that the licensing framework imposes reasonable and proportionate restrictions in public interest, regulating rather than prohibiting the trade in bricks.

Judgment 

The High Court upheld the orders issued by the Deputy Commissioners of Kathua and Samba, finding them lawful and within the statutory powers conferred by the Brick Kiln Act and Rules. It confirmed that dealers importing and selling finished bricks must obtain licences under Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules and that the regulatory scheme is valid and constitutionally compliant. The Court therefore dismissed the writ petition along with all connected applications.

To access the order/judgement, click here

Case Title: Kehar Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

Case:- WP(C) No. 2790/2025

Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Bench: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Date of Decision: 4 November 2025