Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Mr. R. A. Jan vs Mr. S. N. Rattanpuri on 11 April, 2019

Author: Ali Mohammad Magrey

Bench: Ali Mohammad Magrey

1|Page




         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                              AT SRINAGAR


Case no:                              Date of order: 11.04.2019
SWP no.1742/2018

Shakeela Andrabi & ors.         v        Director General, AIR & ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge
Appearance:
For Petitioners:          Mr. R. A. Jan, Sr. Advocate, with
                          Mr. Suhaib, Advocate.
For Respondent(s):        Mr. S. N. Rattanpuri, Advocate.

1. At the hearing of this case day-before-yesterday, Mr. Rattanpuri produced photocopy of an order, captioned as speaking order, bearing no.F. No.45011/16/2011-BA-P dated 16.03.2018, issued by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (BAP Section), Government of India, stating it to be a confidential document. The case was heard and the judgment was reserved. While the Court was in the process of going through the documents preparatory to dictating the judgment, perusal of the aforesaid order dated 16.03.2018, which was stated to be a confidential document, revealed that the whole claim of the petitioners made in the present writ petition stands, purportedly, considered in the Ministry at the level of the Minister for Information & Broadcasting, and rejected. Going by the statement of Mr. Rattanpuri that it is a confidential document, it becomes axiomatic that this order has not been disclosed to the petitioners till date. Having gone through its contents minutely, I do not see any confidentiality therein. It wholly pertains to

2|Page the consideration of claim of the petitioners and rejection thereof. Therefore, it ought to have been disclosed to them for their information, but, seemingly, that has not been. Even at the hearing of this case, it was handed over to the Court as a confidential document only for its perusal without letting the petitioners or their counsel to know what it contained. Since the claim of the petitioners, as put forth in this writ petition, stands considered and rejected prior to the filing of this writ petition and this order has not been challenged in the petition, the petition in its present form for want of challenge to the aforesaid order cannot be proceeded with. The aforesaid order dated 16.03.2018 produced by Mr. Rattanpuri is taken on record.

2. Apart from the above, the claim of the petitioners to booking for 29 days a month is specifically contradicted by order no.15/2/2012-P-VI dated 07.03.2016 issued by the Directorate General, All India Radio, which, inter alia, advises Programme Head of all AIR Stations to restrict bookings of casual assignees to a maximum of 72 (Seventy two) days in a year or 6 (six) days in a month (not applicable to retired officials) on payment as per the fee structure approved by Prasar Bharti. This order is shown to have been issued with the approval of the competent authority. It forms annexure B2 to the amended writ petition at page 280. Thus, this order was within the knowledge the petitioners at the time of filing of the writ petition, yet they have omitted to challenge the same; instead a prayer is made to stay the order of curtailment which respondent department has passed against the petitioners.

3. It is to be borne in mind that the High Court will not issue any direction, even if it finds a case made out, which, it knows, cannot be

3|Page implemented in the face of subsistence of express orders contrary to any such direction, unless, of course, such orders are challenged and quashed depending upon the legality or illegality thereof.

4. In view of the above, this writ petition in its present form for want of challenge to the aforesaid two orders for relief claimed may not be maintainable. However, the Court is of the view that it would be in the interests of justice to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to see if they would wish to challenge the aforesaid two orders either by withdrawing the present writ petition and filing a fresh writ petition or by seeking appropriate amendment in the present writ petition. In that regard, Mr. Rattanpuri is directed to provide a photocopy of no.F. No.45011/16/2011-BA-P dated 16.03.2018 to Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel for information of the petitioners during the course of this day.

5. Mr. Jan shall inform the Court next week about the petitioners' decision to avail of the opportunity so granted to them. In the event the opportunity afforded to the petitioners is not availed of, or that it is reported that they do not want to challenge the two orders, the case would be deemed to have been already heard and judgment would, thereafter, be announced.

6. List next week on 17.04.2019 for the petitioners' response.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar, 11.04.2018 Syed Ayaz, Secretary.