Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Showkat Hussain Ganai vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 20 May, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
NISSAR A BHAT
2022.05.26 17:06
Serial no.137
Supplementary-5
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) 996/2022
CM 2493/2022
Showkat Hussain Ganai
... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Owais Ahmad, Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K and others
Through: Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA, and Mr. Usman Gani, GA
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
ORDER
20.5.2022
1. The petitioner, who was in occupation of government quarter no.
J-41, Jawahar Nagar, has called in question the eviction notice issued by Deputy Director Estates Department, Kashmir, Srinagar, vide his no. DDES/EN/2020/J-41/JK/4910-11 dated 10.9.2020 and communication dated 25.4.2022 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the government accommodation within seven days.
2. Mr. Sajad Ashraf, learned GA, appearing for the respondents, at the outset brought this to the notice of this court that the petitioner had earlier also challenged the impugned order dated 10.9.2020 in WP (C) 1454/2020, which was dismissed by a bench WP (C) 996/2022 Page 2 of 4 of this court vide judgment dated 30.9.2020, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available under J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act. It is, thus, contended by Mr. Ashraf, learned GA, that the petitioner has filed instant petition challenging the same order i.e. order dated 10.9.2020 by suppressing the fact about filing of the earlier writ petition.
3. Attention of this court was invited to paragraph 9 of the writ petition where the petitioner has on affidavit stated that he had not filed any other writ petition before this court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject matter.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the view that this writ petition deserves to be thrown out at the outset for the suppression of material information from this court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the aforesaid fact, fairly submitted that the petitioner did not inform him about the filing and disposal of the earlier writ petition. That apart, the petitioner has no case on merits to maintain this petition.
6. The petitioner was found unauthorized occupant by the competent authority in the year 2020 and was served with the notice impugned dated 10.9.2020 to vacate the premises. Subsequently, the petitioner filed writ petition WP(C) 1454/2020 to challenge the impugned notice of eviction dated 10.9.2020 but WP (C) 996/2022 Page 3 of 4 the court refused to entertain it on the ground that there was an alternative and equally efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner. The writ petition was, thus, dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedy.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy and has not challenged the order impugned dated 10.9.2020. He, however, has continued in possession of the quarter notwithstanding that his eviction had been ordered by the competent authority vide eviction notice dated 10.9.2020. Be that as it may, the petitioner has once again come to this court to challenge not only the initial order of eviction dated 10.9.2020 but also the subsequent communication of the Deputy Director, Estates Department, Srinagar dated 25.4.2022 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the accommodation within seven days. The impugned communication dated 25.4.2022 is only in the nature of remainder asking the petitioner to vacate in compliance to eviction notice dated 10.9.2020.
8. For all these reasons, I find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in view of suppression of material information by the petitioner and obtaining interim directions without disclosing filing and dismissal of the earlier petition challenging the impugned order, the petitioner needs to be penalized so that he does not dare to repeat it again. Accordingly, the petitioner is burdened with the payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs to be deposited in the Advocates' Welfare WP (C) 996/2022 Page 4 of 4 Fund within four weeks from the date of this order. If the costs are not paid by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, Registry shall frame the Robkar and place it before the appropriate bench for further proceedings.
9. Disposed of.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE Srinagar 20.5.2022 N Ahmad Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No