Muneer Ahmad Zarger And Ors vs Ut Of Jk & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 392 j&K/2

                                                               Serial No. 1

                                                               Before notice



              HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                        AT SRINAGAR
                                                         CM No. 1991/2021 in
                                                         WP(C) No. 583/2021

Muneer Ahmad Zarger and Ors.

                                                               ..... Appellant(s)
                               Through: -
         Mr. Taha Khalil, Advocate vice Mr. R. A. Jan, Sr. Advocate

                                      V/s
UT of JK & Ors.
                                                            ..... Respondent(s)

Through: -

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge Hon'ble Mr Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, Judge Order 05.04.2021

The instant application is filed in WP(C) No. 583/2021, which stands

disposed of by this Court in terms of final order passed on 26.03.2021.

Admittedly, no lis is pending disposal before this Court, therefore, the

question of entertaining the interim application in a disposed of matter, does

not arise and is legally untenable, as such, warrants rejection.

Law on the subject is no more res-intergra on the subject of

maintainability of interim application in a disposed of matter. Reference is

made in this behalf to the Judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court

in case titled State of Uttar Prades v. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr.

MANU/SC/0711/1987 reported as (1987) 2 SCC 179: AIR 1987 SC 943. The

relevant para of the Judgment being relevant is taken note of:-

" 10. The High Court's order is not sustainable for yet another reason. Respondents' writ petition challenging the order of dismissal had been final disposed of on August 10, 1984, thereafter nothing remaining pending before the High Court. No miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events after two years. If the respondent was aggrieved by the notice dated January 29, 1986, he could have filed a separate petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notice as it provided a separate cause of action to him. The respondent was not entitled to assail validity of the notice before the High Court by means of a miscellaneous application in the writ petition which had already been decided. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no proceedings were pending before it. The High Court committed error in entertaining the respondent's application which was founded on a separate cause of action. When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition, it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed, there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning."

In view of above, the instant application is unnecessarily and without

any merit, therefore, shall stand dismissed.

                                  (Vinod Chatterji Koul)                    (Ali Mohammad Magrey)
                                          Judge                                       Judge
           SRINAGAR
           05.04.2021
           "Mohammad Yasin Dar"




MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR
2021.04.05 16:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document