Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Dated: 1St Of February vs Union Territory Of Jk & Ors on 1 February, 2021
Serial No. 114
Supplementary-3 List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
ATSRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
LPA No.14/2021
CM Nos.690/2021; 691/2021; & 692/2021
Dated: 1st of February, 2021.
Sunil Suri
.....Appellant(s)
Through: -
Mr Sachin Gupta, Advocate.
V/s
Union Territory of JK & Ors.
.....Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr Ayaz Lone, Dy. AG.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr Justice Puneet Gupta, Judge.
(JUDGMENT)
{Per Magrey; J (Oral)}:
CM Nos. 691/2021 & 692/2021:
01. By these applications, the applicant/ appellant is seeking
permission of this Court to file the appeal without enclosing therewith the
certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 24th of November, 2020
passed in WP(C) No.1547/2020 as well as the requisite Court fee, stamp
papers, etc.
02. On the set of facts and the grounds urged, coupled with
submissions made at the Bar, both the applications are allowed and the
applicant/ appellant shall do the needful immediately upon removal of the
LPA No. 14/2021
CM Nos. 690/2021; 691/2021 & 692/2021
restrictions by the Government on account of outbreak of COVID-19
Pandemic.
03. CM disposed of as above.
LPA No.14/2021 & CM No.690/2021:
04. This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment dated
24th of November, 2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.15474/2020, whereby the petition of the Writ petitioner/ appellant stands
dismissed in limini.
05. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal, as
come to the fore from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that as per
the petitioner/ appellant, the respondent No.4 is a Government employee in
the Rural Development Department, Jammu, but has undertaken another
occupation of photography in the name and style M/s Regal Photo Flash
Studio, Moti Bazar, Jammu. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 suppressed
this fact from the respondent No.1, where the respondent No.4 is an
employee and that on 30th of May, 2016, when the respondent No.4 was in
service, he had opened a bank account with the Jammu and Kashmir Bank
Limited, Branch Talab Tiloo, Jammu in the name of the said photography
shop showing himself as proprietor of the said shop. It is contended that the
respondent No. 4 cannot take another business or profession while being in
active service of Government, which is against law, thereby committing
LPA No. 14/2021
CM Nos. 690/2021; 691/2021 & 692/2021
gross violation of the provisions of service rules and regulations. It was
averred by the Writ petitioner/ appellant that the respondent No.4, since the
very inception of his service, is never regular and most of the time remains
absent from his duties owing to the fact that he operates and runs his
photography shop. The Writ petitioner/ appellant, accordingly, claims to
have filed an application under the provisions of the Right to Information
Act, thereby seeking attendance record of the respondent No.4 from the
office of Assistant Commissioner, Rural Development Department,
Udhampur, however, the concerned authorities, despite lapse of the statutory
period, failed to provide the requisite information about the attendance of the
respondent No.4, which, prima facie, substantiates the fact that the
respondent No.4 has actually not been attending the office and thus holding
the post of BDO, Sewna, illegally. The Writ petitioner/ appellant avers that
he brought to the notice of the respondents 1 & 2 the misconduct of the
respondent No.4 and highlighted the negligence on the part of respondent
No.4 before the authorities by medium of a complaint, requesting initiation
of action against respondent No.4, but despite that, the respondents 1 & 2
did not take any action against private respondent No.4 and thus, allowed the
illegality to perpetuate. The official respondents having thus, failed to
discharge their obligatory duty in accordance with law while dealing with
the misconduct and commission of gross violation of the service rules by
private respondent No.4, the Writ petitioner/ appellant filed the aforesaid
Writ petition seeking a direction upon the official respondents to conduct an
enquiry and take necessary action against the respondent No.4 and decide
the representation filed by the Writ petitioner/ appellant. The learned Single,
LPA No. 14/2021
CM Nos. 690/2021; 691/2021 & 692/2021
in terms of the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition filed by the Writ
petitioner/ appellant.
06. Learned counsel for the Writ petitioner/ appellant submits that
the learned Writ Court has not appreciated the controversy involved in the
case in its true and correct perspective inasmuch as it has not considered the
fact that the respondent No.4 committed violation of service rules by
running a business under his name despite being in active Government
service.
07. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, coupled with a
perusal of the pleadings on record, we are of the view that the impugned
judgment, which has been assailed before us, has been passed by the learned
Single Judge in strict accordance with the law governing the subject. The
learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the petition is grossly
misconceived as the Writ petitioner/ appellant was having no locus standi to
maintain the same.
08. It is well settled legal position that a person shall have no locus
standi to file a Writ petition if he/ she is not personally affected by the
impugned action or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or
substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being
invaded or his/ her acquired interests have been violated ignoring the
applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
based on the existence of a right in favour of the petitioner invoking the
LPA No. 14/2021
CM Nos. 690/2021; 691/2021 & 692/2021
jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the Writ petitioner, appellant has been
unable to point out his locus standi to maintain the Writ petition. In that
view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the
impugned judgment passed by the learned Single judge as would warrant
interference from this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and shall stand
dismissed as such, alongwith the connected CM.
(Puneet Gupta) (Ali Mohammad Magrey)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
February 1st, 2021
"TAHIR"
i. Whether the Judgment is reportable? Yes/ No.
ii. Whether the Judgment is speaking? Yes/ No.
TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT
2021.02.01 16:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
