Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
District Bar Association Bandipora vs State Of J&K; And Ors on 3 July, 2017
Serial No. 1
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
OWP No. 260/2014
Date of order: 03.07.2017
District Bar Association Bandipora v. State of J&K & ors
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magreyr, Judge.
Appearing counsel:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. A. Qayoom, Advocate.
Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. I. Dar, AAG,
Mr. Tahir Majid Shamsi, ASGI.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No Per- Badar Durrez Ahmed- CJ (Oral)
1. With regard to the Mominabad District Court Complex, the learned counsel for the respondent-State informs us that the said complex would be completed in all respects by 10th of July, 2017 so that the Court could be inaugurated and made operational around the 3rd week of July, 2017.
2. Insofar as the District Court Complex at Bandipora is concerned, the learned counsel for the State informs us that private negotiations are at the final stages and the result would be known within a day or so. He shall file the latest position before the next date of hearing.
OWP No. 260/2014 Page 1 of 3
3. As regards the other District Court Complexes, we had directed in our previous order, in paragraph 3 thereof, that a detailed status report be filed along with the expected dates of completion and if there were any delays, the reasons for the delays should be clearly indicated. That has not been done.
The learned counsel for the State shall comply with that direction positively before the next date of hearing.
4. With regard to additional staff, the Registry of the High Court, as noted in the previous order, has already submitted the updated proposal. The respondents were to respond to it. They have not done so. A final opportunity is given to the respondents to do so within a week.
5. The issue of daily wagers has also not been tackled appropriately by the respondents. We say so because the Supreme Court has made very strong observations in Civil Appeal No. 36084 of 2016 in its judgment dated 08.12.2016 and particularly in paragraph 22 thereof, which has been quoted in our order dated 17.12.2016. The Supreme Court observed that the need to facilitate proper functioning of the High Court and the District judiciary is a constitutional necessity which imposes a non-negotiable obligation on the State Government to create an adequate number of posts and to provide sufficient infrastructure. The Supreme Court also observed that the State Government was to blame for the unfortunate situation which has resulted in a large number of persons being recruited on a daily wage basis. OWP No. 260/2014 Page 2 of 3
6. On the basis of these observations themselves, we can issue a mandamus to the State Government, however, the learned counsel for the State requested for a final opportunity to come up with a solution, particularly with regard to the sanction of additional posts and the issue of daily wagers. We are also making it clear that the observations made by the Supreme Court pertained only to the Judiciary, i.e., the High Court and the District Judiciary and not to any other department of the Government. Therefore, the Government should take up the issue of daily wagers separately insofar as the Judiciary is concerned.
7. Re-notify on 24.07.2017.
8. Copies of this order be provided Dasti to the learned counsel for both the sides.
(Ali Mohamad Magrey) (Badar Durrez Ahmed)
Judge Chief Justice
Srinagar
03. 07.2017
Anil Raina, Secy
OWP No. 260/2014 Page 3 of 3