Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd Younas Khan And Anr vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 26 April, 2023
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Sr.No. 13
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 95/2022
CM No. 5604/2022
CM No. 5605/2022
Mohd Younas Khan and Anr. .... Appellant(s)/Petitioner (s)
Through :- Mr. Sheikh Najeeb, Advocate.
V/s
UT of J&K and Ors. ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Aparna Gupta, Advocate vice
Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
Mr. Ajay Bakshi, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE.
ORDER
26.04.2023.
1. This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 15.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court [the Writ Court] in WP(C) No. 1870/2022 titled Mohd. Farooq vs UT of J&K and Ors whereby the learned Writ Court has, while allowing the writ petition, directed respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to provide necessary assistance to the writ petitioner (respondent No. 7 herein) in operating the petrol pump in question in accordance with the directions contained in the order dated 23.05.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 1107/2022.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that this order of the Writ Court is not sustainable for the following reasons:
(I) That no positive direction could have been issued by the Writ Court without putting on notice respondent Nos.7 and 8 (the appellants herein) and affording them an adequate opportunity of being heard. 2 LPA No. 95/2022 CM No. 5604/2022 CM No. 5605/2022
(II) The direction to give protection by assistance to the writ petitioners in operating the petrol pump without first ascertaining as to whether he was actually in possession and operating the petrol pump was not permissible in law.
(III) As is projected by the appellants before us, there is civil litigation between the parties but its impact on the writ petition has not been considered.
3. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the appellants herein, who were respondents before the Writ Court, were required to be heard in the matter. The Writ Court would have been in better position to adjudicate the controversy raised in the petition after hearing respondent Nos. 7 and 8.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Writ Court for reconsideration and fresh determination.
5. Disposed of.
6. Registry to list the writ petition for consideration before the learned Writ Court in the next week.
(Rajesh Sekhri) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
26.04.2023.
Neha-1