Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Manohar Singh vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 7 October, 2021
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajnesh Oswal
Sr. No. 81
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case: LPA No. 103 of 2021
Manohar Singh .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Sh. C. M. Koul, Sr. Advocate with
Smt. Renuka Bharti, Advocate
v/s
Union Territory of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Sh. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
1. The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for condoning the delay of 330 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal(LPA).
2. Sufficient cause has been explained by the appellant in the application, as such, the same is allowed and delay of 330 days in filing the LPA is condoned.
3. Application bearing CM No. 7816 of 2021 stands disposed of.
4. Appeal is taken on Board.
5. This intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1338 of 2018 by virtue of which the writ petition of the appellant was held to be not maintainable and simultaneously, it was observed that the same shall not debar the writ petitioner/appellant to avail the appropriate remedy for the relief prayed for in the petition in accordance with law.
2 LPA No. 103 of 2021
6. The appellant has filed the present appeal primarily on the ground that a writ of mandamus for implementation of the judgments passed by this Court in SWP No. 963 of 1999 dated 02.08.2021 and SWP No. 2920 of 2010 dated 04.10.2012 was maintainable.
7. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that vide order dated 02.08.2001, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition bearing SWP No. 963 of 1999 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant in light of the submission made by the appellant in the petition. After 11 years, the appellant filed another writ petition bearing SWP No. 2920 of 2010 seeking implementation of the Court order dated 02.08.2001 (supra) passed in the earlier writ petition filed by him and that writ petition was also disposed of vide order dated 04.10.2012 with a direction to the respondents to implement the judgment dated 02.08.2001 passed in SWP No. 963 of 1999.
8. Thereafter, the appellant filed a contempt petition bearing COA(S) No. 12 of 2015 and the same was closed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.02.2018 holding that the same is time barred.
9. The appellant then filed another writ petition bearing SWP No. 1338 of 2018 seeking implementation of the judgments passed in SWP No. 963 of 1999 dated 02.08.2001 and in a subsequent writ petition bearing SWP No. 2920 of 2010 dated 04.10.2012.
10. The learned Single Judge in absence of any representation on the part of the appellant-writ petitioner, dismissed the writ petition on 25.08.2020 as not maintainable.
3 LPA No. 103 of 2021
11. Sh. C. M. Koul, learned senior counsel assisted by Smt. Renuka Bharti appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that a writ of mandamus for implementing the judgment passed by the same court is maintainable and the learned Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the writ petition.
12. Heard and perused the record.
13. The sole argument raised by the appellant is that a writ of mandamus can be issued to implement the direction/judgment rendered by the same court.
14. From the record, it is evident that despite having earned the order dated 02.08.2001, the appellant neither filed any application thereby bringing to the notice of the Court that its judgment has not been implemented nor filed any contempt petition and rather filed another writ petition for implementation of the earlier judgment and that writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.10.2012 and it was only after three long years, the appellant chose the appropriate remedy. However, contempt petition filed by the appellant seeking implementation of the judgment, was dismissed on 05.08.2018 being time barred. The appellant thereafter filed yet another petition seeking implementation of both the judgments referred above.
15. This is the third round of litigation and similar relief is being sought by the appellant that was earlier sought by him through the medium of second writ petition. We are of the considered view that the appellant cannot time and again file the writ petitions claiming the identical relief. It also requires to be noted that the dispute is with regard to the selection of Patwari conducted in the year 1997 and 4 LPA No. 103 of 2021 much water has flown since then. The appellant as per his own admission has attained the age of 55 years so in view of facts and circumstances of the case, we do not deem it proper to show any indulgence. There is no illegality in the order impugned.
16. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (PANKAJ MITHAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU
07.10.2021
Rakesh
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No