Srinagar, Apr 18: At a time when governance across the country is steadily moving towards trust-based systems, decentralisation, and minimal interference in business decisions, a recent communication from the office of the Deputy Chief Minister, who also holds charge of Industries and Commerce, has brought into focus a deeply disquieting shift.
For years, entrepreneurs across Jammu and Kashmir have consistently flagged official callousness, delayed decision-making, and an ‘Ease of Doing Business’ framework that, in their experience, existed far more on paper than on the ground.
The return of an elected government had rekindled hope – almost relief – that this phase of bureaucratic rigidity would give way to a more responsive and facilitative regime.
It is against this backdrop that the present development assumes significance.
The communication addressed to the Commissioner Secretary, Industries and Commerce, from OSD to In-charge Minister, states: “It has been brought to the notice of the Deputy Chief Minister (Minister, In-charge Industries and Commerce Department) that certain General Managers of the District Industries Centres (DICs) are granting permission for change in line of activity to warehousing (provisional/permanent) without obtaining the prior consent of the competent authority. In view of the above, the undersigned is directed to invite the kind attention of the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government, Industries and Commerce Department to this matter and to request that strict instructions be issued to all District Industries Centres (DICs) to ensure that no permission for the change in line of activity to Warehousing (Provisional/Permanent) is granted under any circumstances until the specific directions are issued by the competent authority in this regard. Besides this, it is also requested that the permission granted so far in this regard be kept in abeyance till further orders.”
Further, it is conveyed that, if any new request for change in the line of activity to Warehousing (Provisional or Permanent) is received, the prior consent of the Hon’ble Minister Incharge (Industries and Commerce Department) shall be obtained before taking any action, as desired by the Chief Minister.
This effectively withdraws decision-making powers from District Industries Centres and centralises them at the ministerial level – even for routine operational changes.
Yet, a change in line of activity is not an exception – it is intrinsic to the enterprise. Businesses evolve with markets, technology, and demand.
The ability to diversify or pivot is not a concession from the system; it is the very basis of entrepreneurship.
So long as the intended activity does not fall within restricted or prohibited sectors – such as those barred under notified frameworks relating to items like tobacco, alcoholic beverages, or arms and ammunition – entrepreneurs are ordinarily free to take such decisions.
They carry the investment risk, manage operations, and remain accountable for outcomes.
To restrict this flexibility is to constrain enterprise at its core.
In this context, warehousing – the activity in question – deserves clarity.
Under the National Industrial Classification (NIC) (NIC-2008), warehousing is a well-defined and legally permissible economic activity falling under Division 52 (Warehousing and Support Activities for Transportation), specifically Group 521 (Warehousing and Storage).
It includes the operation of facilities for storage and safekeeping of goods – agricultural produce, raw materials, and finished products – through warehouses.
It is a non-transformative, service-oriented activity-focused on storage, preservation, and inventory management, without any manufacturing or alteration of goods. Crucially, it is neither a restricted nor a sensitive sector. It is a legitimate, infrastructure-support activity integral to supply chains and economic functioning. Enterprises are therefore fully within their rights to undertake or transition into warehousing as part of their normal business evolution.
Against this backdrop, requiring prior ministerial consent for such routine transitions is not regulatory caution – it is administrative regression.
What was earlier a decentralised, time-bound process has now been drawn into a centralised approval chain, weakening institutional efficiency at the district level.
The consequences are predictable: longer timelines, increased dependencies, and higher transaction costs for MSMEs already operating under strain.
This does not align with “minimum government, maximum governance” – it contradicts it.
More critically, it unsettles the fragile confidence that had begun to return with the restoration of elected governance.
After years of bureaucratic dominance, entrepreneurs expected a decisive shift towards trust and facilitation.
Instead, such measures risk signaling a return to the very system they had hoped was behind them – only now more structured and more restrictive.
The issue, therefore, goes beyond warehousing or a single directive.
It raises a fundamental question: is governance moving towards enabling enterprise, or reverting to controlling it?
“Ease of Doing Business” cannot remain a stated intent while operational flexibility is curtailed in practice.
It must reflect in how seamlessly enterprises are allowed to adapt, decide, and grow.
If processes continue to move in the opposite direction, the concern is no longer about delay – it is about direction.
And that, more than anything else, will determine whether confidence sustains or erodes.
