Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S Hallmark Sidco Complex Jammu vs State And Ors. on 2 August, 2017
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Sanjeev Kumar
1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
APLPA No. 27/2017 in LPAOW No. 70/2017, MP No. 01/2017
Caveat No. 2136/2017
Date of order:-02.08.2017
M/S Hallmark, SIDCO Complex Jammu Vs. State and ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For the Appellant/Petitioner(s): Mr. Pranav Kohli, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Seema Shekhar, Sr. AAG.
Mr. Sudesh Kumar Magotra, GA.
(a) Whether approved for reporting in
Digest/Law Journal-Net : Yes/No
(b) Whether approved for reporting in
Press/Media : Yes/No
Caveat No. 2136/2017
Caveat stands discharged.
APLPA No. 27/2017
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the requirement of filing certified copy of the impugned order dated 29th April, 2017 is dispensed with.
Accordingly, application is disposed of. LPAOW No. 70/2017
1. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
APLPA No. 27/2017 in LPAOW No. 70/2017 Page 1 of 3 2
2. In this Intra Court Appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 29th April, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the appellant has invited attention of this Court to the motion of adjournment and pointed out that the same was circulated with the consent of the counsel for the State Government, however, in absence of the counsel for the appellant, the writ petition has been dismissed. It is submitted that the appellant has been deprived of the opportunity of addressing the Court. In other words, impugned order has been passed by the learned Writ Court without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
4. On the other hand, Mrs. Seema Shekhar, Sr. AAG submitted that counsel appearing for the respondents had not signed the motion for adjournment. It is further submitted that the respondents in the writ petition before the Single Judge were represented by Mr. Sudesh Kumar Magotra, Government Advocate, and the motion for APLPA No. 27/2017 in LPAOW No. 70/2017 Page 2 of 3 3 adjournment was signed by Mr. Tarun Sharma, learned Government Advocate.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the order impugned has been passed in absence of the counsel for the appellant. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant has raised arguable question of facts in the writ petition, therefore, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order dated 29th April, 2017 qua the petitioner insofar as it pertains to OWP No. 1204/2013 and the writ petition is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for deciding it afresh. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today.
6. We request the learned Single Judge to take up the application moved by the respondents for vacation of ad interim order on the next date of hearing.
7. Let the writ petition be listed on 01.09.2017.
8. Accordingly, LPA is disposed of.
(Sanjeev Kumar) (Alok Aradhe)
Judge Judge
Jammu,
02.08.2017
Ram Krishan
APLPA No. 27/2017 in LPAOW No. 70/2017 Page 3 of 3