Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Territory Of Jk And Others vs Showkat Hussain Mintoo on 11 February, 2021
S. No. 101
Admission
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
LPA no. 146/2020
CM no. 7627/2020
CM no. 7625/2020
CM no. 7626/2020
Union Territory of JK and others
.... Appellant(s)
Through: Mr Ayjaz Lone, Dy. AG
V/s
Showkat Hussain Mintoo
... Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge
Hon'ble Mr Justice Puneet Gupta, Judge
ORDER
11.02.2021
CM no. 7627/2020
On the grounds taken in the CM coupled with the submissions made, the
application is allowed and the requirement of filing the certified copy of the order
impugned; the attested affidavits and depositing court fee/ stamps, is dispensed
with for the time being. The same shall be filed as and when the restrictions on
account of Covid-19 are completely lifted.
CM disposed of.
CM no. 7625/2020
By this application the applicants/ appellants seek condonation of delay
which has occasioned in filing the appeal.
On the grounds taken in the CM coupled with the submissions made at Bar
by the learned Deputy Advocate General, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is
shown to seek condonation of the delay. The condonation is further required to be
made for appreciating the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, the application is
allowed and the delay occasioned in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM disposed of.
Appeal is taken on board.
LPA no. 146/2020
By the instant Letters Patent Appeal, for short LPA, the appellants call in
question the judgment dated 16th May, 2018, for short impugned judgment, passed
in writ petition, SWP no. 331/2016, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner/
appellants herein, has been dismissed. The challenge to the impugned judgment is
made inter alia on the grounds that the impugned judgment is against facts and
circumstances of the case; the reasoning of the communication dated 21.12.2015
has not been appreciated in its right perspective; the impugned judgment is legally
untenable.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr Ayjaz Lone, learned Deputy Advocate General, submits that the writ
court did not appreciate the background in which the communication dated
21.12.2015 came to be issued. He submits further that the writ court also did not
appreciate that the appellants after due deliberations over the issue passed a
speaking and reasoned order. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed and
the impugned judgment is set-aside.
The appellant has not made out a single ground to shake the findings
recorded by the writ court in the impugned judgment, therefore, we are not inclined
to interfere with the impugned judgment.
We do not see anything bad with the impugned judgment dismissing the writ
petition of the petitioner/ appellant herein. The impugned judgment is well within
the cannons of law and the writ court has appreciated the controversy in its right
perspective.
The Writ Court has left it open for the appellants to take a re-look on the
entire issue and take an independent view of the matter after considering in its
correct perspective the recommendations made by the SFC Management
Committee, therefore, the right of the appellants to again go through the matter is
not closed.
Having said that, the appeal needs to be dismissed at its threshold. It is
dismissed accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
The impugned judgment is accordingly affirmed.
(Puneet Gupta) (Ali Mohammad Magrey)
Judge Judge
Jammu
11.02.2021
Amjad Lone PS
AMJAD AHMAD LONE
2021.02.19 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
