Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Cm Nos. 1809/2021 vs Ravinder Singh And Another on 24 February, 2021
105, 111 to 116
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 110/2020
CM Nos.5702/2020. 5703/2020 & 5704/2020
in
LPA No. 103/2020
CM Nos. 5437/2020 & 5438/2020
LPA 109/2020
CM Nos. 5685/2020, 5683/2020 & 5684/2020
LPA 111/2020
CM Nos. 5705/2020, 5706/2020 & 5707/2020
LPA No. 32/2021
CM Nos. 1794/2021, 1795/2021 & 1796/2021
LPA No. 33/2021
CM Nos. 1797/2021, 1798/2021 & 1799/2021
LPA No. 34/2021
CM Nos. 1800/2021, 1801/2021, 1802/2021
LPA No. 35/2021
CM Nos. 1803/2021, 1804/2021 & 1805/2021
LPA No. 36/2021
CM Nos. 1806/2021, 1807/2021 & 1808/2021
LPA No. 37/2021
CM Nos. 1809/2021, 1810/2021 & 1811/2021
UT of J&K .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. H. A. Siddiqui, Sr. AAG
V/s
Ravinder Singh and another .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. F. A. Natnoo, AAG
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
24.02.2021
Oral
Per: Thakur-J
01. The present Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred against the
common judgment and order dated 29.07.2020. By virtue of the said judgment
the petitions filed by the petitioners/private respondents herein were dismissed
as having been rendered infructuous.
02. The appellants are aggrieved of the observations recorded in
paragraph Nos. 30, 41 & 42 of the said judgment and order, wherein cost has
been directed to be imposed on the Public Service Commission as also the
Government, with a further direction for initiation of Suo-moto contempt
proceedings against the Secretary, Department of Health & Medical Education
and the Secretary, Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission.
03. The reason for imposition of cost as also the initiation of Suo-moto
contempt proceedings, as is reflected from the paragraphs mentioned
hereinabove was that despite certain interim orders passed by the Court, the
same were not complied with by the aforementioned officers/Departments.
04. A coordinate bench of this Court while dealing with one of the appeal
bearing LPA No. 102/2020 titled "Union Territory of J&K Vs Nirupam
Madaan and another" vide judgement and order dated 10.02.2021 set aside the
judgement and order dated 29.07.2020, which was challenged in the
aforementioned LPA to the extent of paragraph Nos. 30, 41 & 42. What was
stated by the coordinate Bench in the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:-
" ............................
............................
The appellants were the respondents before the Writ Court in a
case in which the impugned judgment has been passed and the dismissal
of the writ petitions has certainly resulted in their favour, however, they
are only aggrieved of the observations recorded by the Court in
paragraph no. 30; imposing cost of Rs. 1.00 lakh each on the
respondents, appellants herein; and the initiation of contempt
proceedings against them as recorded in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the
impugned judgement.
We have gone through the entire material made available. The
fact that the costs imposed by the writ Court upon the respondents/
appellants herein is required to be paid from the Public Exchequer and
while having regard to the overall circumstances in which the
proceedings of the writ petitions in question have proceeded, we feel that
the impugned judgment is required to be interfered with inasmuch as
paragraphs 30, 41 & 42 are concerned.
Accordingly, the impugned judgement, insofar as paragraphs 30,
41 & 42 are concerned, is set-aside. The appeal, as such, is allowed along
with connected CMs to the extent indicated above.
Disposed of."
05. Apart from the above, Mr. H. A. Siddiqui, learned Sr. AAG for the
appellants as also Mr. F. A. Natnoo, learned AAG appearing for the J&K
Public Service Commission state that the writ Court in terms of the provisions
of Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short "Act of
1985"), ought not to have considered any of the issues, which arose in the writ
petition, much less could the writ Court pass any directions with regard to
imposition of cost or initiation of contempt proceedings. For purposes of
reference, Section 29 of the Act of 1985 is reproduced hereunder:-
" 29. Transfer of pending cases.-
(1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court or other
authority immediately before the date of establishment of a
Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of
action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had
arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such
Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal
pending as aforesaid before a High Court
(2) Every suit or other proceeding pending before a court or other
authority immediately before the date with effect from which
jurisdiction is conferred on a Tribunal in relation to any local or
other authority or corporation [or society], being a suit or
proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it
would have been, if it had arisen after the said date, within the
jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to
such Tribunal:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal
pending as aforesaid before a High Court.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section "date with
effect from which jurisdiction is conferred on a Tribunal", in
relation to any local or other authority or corporation [or society],
means the date with effect from which the provisions of sub-
section (3) of section 14 or, as the case may be, sub-section (3) of
section 15 are applied to such local or other authority or
corporation [or society].
(3) ...........................
(4) ............................
(5) ...........................
(6) ...........................
(7) ........................... "
06. At this point, it is pertinent to refer to two notifications issued by
the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department
of Personnel and Training. The first one is dated 29.04.2020, whereby in
exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 18 of
the Act of 1985 of the Central Government effected an amendment in the
table in the notification of the Government of India dated 26.07.1985,
whereby the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh were
subjected to the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Bench.
07. Subsequently, another notification dated 28.05.2020 was issued,
whereby in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (7) of Section 5 of the
Act of 1985, the Central Government specified Jammu and Kashmir as
the places at which the Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal
would hold their sitting for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and
the Union Territory of Ladakh.
08. Be that as it may, the combined effect of Section 29 of the Act of
1985 and the notification dated 29.04.2020 was that the service petitions
pending before the High court by application of Section 29 of the Act of
1985 would stand transferred, leaving no scope for the writ Court to pass
orders in the same, including any ancillary orders in the contempt
jurisdiction, especially, where the petitions were dismissed as having been
rendered infructuous by the writ Court itself and more so where the
petitioners were not seeking any such action against the appellants.
09. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned judgment to the
extent of paragraph Nos. 30, 41 & 42 is set aside.
10. Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of along with connected
applications.
(Javed Iqbal Wani) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
24.02.2021
(Muneesh)
MUNEESH SHARMA
2021.03.01 13:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
