Kuljeet Rai vs Chairman The J&K Special Tribunal
2021 Latest Caselaw 5 j&K

                                                                           S. No. 134
                 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                            AT JAMMU
                                 (Through Video Conference)

                                                    WP (C) No. 62/2021
                                                    CM No. 305/2021
                                                    CM No. 306/2021
                                                    CAV No. 1623/2020

Kuljeet Rai                                                 ...Petitioner/Applicant(s)

                Through :- Mr. Ajay Gandotra, Advocate
               V/s <




Chairman The J&K Special Tribunal                    .....Respondent (s)
Jammu and ors.
't




                  Through :- Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate for No. 3
Coram:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                        (Through Video Conference from High Court Jammu)

                                          ORDER

22.01.2021

CM No. 306/2021

The instant application has been filed by the petitioner seeking

extension of time for filing the affidavit, stamp and court fee etc in support of the

petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The

petitioner shall do the needful within a period of three days, when the normal

functioning of the Courts begins.

Application is, accordingly, disposed of.

WP(C) No. 62/2021

Notice.

Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of

respondent No. 3, who is on caveat. Caveat shall stand discharged. There is no

need to serve other respondents.

With the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, this writ

petition is taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner has impugned order dated 07.10.2020 passed by

respondent No. 1 in a revision petition filed by respondent No. 3, whereby order

dated 19.08.2020 by virtue of which officiating charge of Managing Director/CEO

was granted in favour of the petitioner, was stayed by respondent No. 1.

During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner laid a

motion for arraying him as party respondent but the same was dismissed by the

respondent No. 1 vide order dated 10.11.2020. The petitioner has also assailed the

said order in the present petition

Mr. Ajay Gandotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has

vehemently argued that as assigning the charge of Managing Director/CEO was

granted to the petitioner by virtue of order dated 19.08.2020 and the said order

was challenged by respondent No. 3 in a revision, the petitioner was required to be

arrayed as party respondent. He has further argued that no reason has been

assigned by respondent No. 1 while rejecting the application for arraying the

petitioner as a party respondent.

On being confronted with these facts, Mr. Himanshu Beotra, learned

counsel for the respondent No. 3 very fairly conceded and agreed that the

petitioner is a necessary party for the purpose of adjudication of the revision

petition and he has no objection, if the petitioner is arrayed as party respondent in

the revision petition pending before respondent No. 1.

I have also gone through the order dated 10.11.2020. No reason,

whatsoever, has been assigned by respondent No. 1 while rejecting the application

of the petitioner for arraying him as a party.

Needless to say that the reasons are the soul of any judicial or quasi

judicial order. Since no reasons has been assigned by the respondent No. 1 while

passing order impugned, the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Garg v

Meena Garg and another, (2013) 3 SCC 246. Relevant para 4 reads:

"We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis and also carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the High Court. To say the least, the order passed by the High Court is a non-speaking order. It is a settled position of law that an order which does not contain any reason is no order in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law."

The petitioner was a necessary party in a revision petition as his

status was challenged by the respondent No. 3. So far as challenge to order dated

07.10.2020 is concerned, Mr. Ajay Gandotra, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that he shall raise all the available pleas before respondent No. 1 and both

the counsels have agreed for the expeditious disposal of the revision petition

within a stipulated period of time.

In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is partly

allowed. The order 10.11.2020 is quashed. The petitioner is arrayed as respondent

No. 4 in the revision petition. The respondent No. 1 shall make all possible

endeavours to dispose of the revision petition, preferably within the period of three

months from today. However, this order shall have no effect or bearing on the

merits of the controversy between the contesting parties.

Disposed of.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE JAMMU 22.01.2021 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No RAKESH KUMAR 2021.01.28 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document