Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Gh. Qadir Rather And Anr vs Financial Commissioner Revenue And Ors on 15 May, 2018
Author: Ali Mohammad Magrey
Bench: Ali Mohammad Magrey
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
Case no.:
OWP no.27/2015 Date of order: 15.05.2018
Ghulam Qadir Rather & anr. v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue & ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For Petitioner: Mr. Nazim Khan, Advocate;
For Respondents: Mr. M. A. Wani, Sr. AaAG for 1 & 3;
Mr. M. A. Qayoom, Advocate, for no.2.
1. This petition was heard on 20.03.2018 and judgment was reserved. While dictating the judgment, it was noticed that petitioners on 12.10.2015 have made a motion, being MP no.01/2015, seeking permission to amend the writ petition, and, the memo of amended writ petition, too, has been placed on record in a separate file cover alongwith the motion for amendment.
2. Perusal of the minutes of the file reveals that this MP was first listed before the Court on 13.10.2015 on which date copy thereof was furnished to Mr. M. A. Qayoom for objections within two weeks. On 17.02.2016, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting time to file objections, made it clear that in case objections were not filed on or before the next date of hearing, with a copy in advance to the learned counsel for the petitioners, right to file objections shall be deemed to have been forfeited and the application shall be considered on the basis of material available on record. The matter was, thereafter, listed before the Court on 19.04.2016. On that date the writ petition is shown to have been part heard by a Coordinate Bench of the Court. When the matter again came up before that Bench on Owp no. 27/2015 1|Page 03.05.2016, the Court ordered that the learned counsel for the parties need to assist the Court on the points mentioned in the order. Insofar as the application, MP no.01/2015, is concerned, it seems to have been neither brought to the notice of the Court, nor was it considered at any stage after the order dated 17.02.2016. Apparently, the consideration of the MP has altogether been skipped, mostly on account of the failure of the learned counsel for the petitioners to bring its pendency to the notice of the Court. Even on 20.03.2018, when the writ petition was argued before this Bench, the factum of pendency of the MP seeking permission to amend the writ petition was not brought to the notice of the Court. The Court staff meant for the purpose has also been slack on this count.
3. At this stage, this Court could proceed in the matter in terms of the court order dated 17.02.2016, but, unfortunately, notice in the application has not gone to the non-applicants therein, who are sought to be impleaded as respondents in the writ petition by way of amendment. It may be mentioned here that originally the petitioners had impleaded only three respondents in the writ petition, namely, the Financial Commissioner, one Ghulam Mohammad Shah and Tehsildar Tangmarg. By way of amendment, they are seeking to array 17 other persons, viz., non-applicants 4 to 20 in the application as respondents and these non-applicants have not yet been served in the application seeking amendment / arraignment. It may also be mentioned here that Mr. M. A. Qayoom has filed objections to this MP only on behalf of respondent no.2. Obviously, he is not representing the other respondents, namely, non-applicants 4 to 20 in the application who are yet to be served.
4. In light of the above, this Court is unable to write the judgment and decide the matter at this stage.
Owp no. 27/2015 2|Page
5. In order to complete the procedural requirements, Registry is directed to issue notice in MP no.01/2015 to non-applicants 4 to 20 therein for their objections, returnable within four weeks.
6. It is noticed that the petitioners have not filed as many number of copies of the application and the memo of amended writ petition as the non- applicants sought to be arrayed as respondents by them. They are directed to file the requisite number of complete sets of the application and the memo of amended writ petition alongwith annexures for effecting service on these persons during the current week, whereafter the Registry shall issue notice to them in terms of the direction contained in para 5 above.
7. List the MP in question immediately after four weeks.
8. Since the amended writ petition has not yet been taken on record, nor objections/reply thereto have been filed by the respondents therein, the case shall not be treated as having been heard or part heard by this Bench; it shall be listed in normal course for completion of the procedural requirements.
9. The list of judgments and the photocopies of the judgments produced by the learned counsel for the parties shall be kept on record in a separate file cover for use at the appropriate stage.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar, 15.05.2018 Syed Ayaz, Secretary Owp no. 27/2015 3|Page