Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1995J& K16
B.A. Khan, J.1. What is the ambit and scope of Article 181 of the J&K; Limitation Act? Does it prescribe limitation for all types of applications under all special enactments including applications under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act or for applications under the Code of Civil Procedure only?2. These questions arise out of the applications filed by the appellants under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking reference of some disputes to the arbitrator. The applications were resisted by the respondent-State on the plea of limitation and eventually rejected by the learned single Judge as time barred vide judgment dated 29-12-1989. The matter went in appeal to the Division Bench which has referred the following question 'for authoritative pronouncement by the Full Bench :'Whet her Article 181 of the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act?'Before we proceed to formulate our answer, we deem it appropriate to bring out the close simi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4417,2006(1)JKJ165
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. Legality and propriety of Inquiry Report of One Man Commission dated 15-12-2002, Notification SRO 106 dated 15-3-2003 appointing One Man Corn-mission of Inquiry and all consequential actions initiated by the State on the basis of the Report of Commission of Inquiry have been called in question by the petitioner, who is an IPS Officer of the State.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition as are available in the pleadings of the parties are--Petitioner was posted as Superintendent of Police, Anantnag from August, 1998 to 4th April, 2000. On 25th March, 2000 Adjutant 7th Bn, Rashtriya Rifles (Pb) submitted a written report to Police Station, Achhabal for registering an FIR disclosing that an Army Unit carried out specific cordon and search operation in Forest of Panchalthari from 5.15 hours to 1500 hours on 25th March, 2000. An encounter took place between terrorists and troops of the Unit. In the operation five terrorists were killed. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. These four letters patent appeals arise from the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions filed by the same petitioners. They filed SWP No. 1208/1986 for quashing the order of the Director General of Police (DGP) dated 3rd December, 1985 directing that the appellants and others who were brought on promotion list 'E' on 25th April, 1978 -- barring those who stood otherwise disqualified and had so far not been promoted as Sub-Inspectors (SI) -- shall be deemed to have been promoted as SI for the purpose of seniority with effect from 25th April, 1978 i.e. the date when they were brought on the promotion list. The petitioners further sought mandamus on the official respondents not to take into consideration the said order of 'notional' promotion in preparing list 'F' or giving promotions to the post of Inspector, and to declare them (writ-petitioners) as senior to the respondents. Alleging that the file of SWP No. 1208/1986 was not traceable in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2004(1)JKJ1
V. K. Jhanji, A.C.J1. Justice hurried is justice burried. This is an old legal maxim which, over and above court practices and procedures, has served, and should serve, us as a guiding caution in the process of dispensation of justice. It would be apt to the context to recall to ourselves that we, as Judges, have plentitude of judicial power in all matters concerning the general administration of justice. This power enables us to exercise control over process by regulating proceedings, by preventing abuse of process and, if necessary, by compelling observance of the process. Such jurisdiction, as a Court of Justice, may be invoked or exercised not only in relation to parties in pending proceedings, but in relation to any one, whether a party or not. We are supposedly immune from committing errors, mistakes or wrongs. We, as judges, know our absolute privileges: we have a freedom from action and question.2. All this -- the jurisdiction, the plentitude of powers the immunity and above al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Mufti-Baha-Ud-Din, Ag. C.J.1. At the last general election to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly held in July, 1977, the National Conference party was returned with a large majority. Those returned on the National Conference Ticket included S/Shri Malik Mohi-ud-Din. and Mian Bashir Ahmad. Thereafter, Shri Malik Mohi-ud-Din was elected as Speaker of the Assembly on 8-9-1977 and continued to discharge his duties as such till 11-10-1980 when he was removed from office following a 'No confidence motion' moved against him.2. On 30-6-1980, Shri Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din, Secretary of the National Conference Legislature party represented to the Speaker that Shri Mian Bashir Ahmad had voluntarily given up the membership of the National Conference party and joined the Cong-I and that thereby he had incurred disqualification under Section 24-G of the J. & K. Representation of the People Act, 1957 (shortly 'the Act') for being a member of the Legislative Assembly. He prayed that appropriate acti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2005(2)JKJ583,(2005)IILLJ1059J& K
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. The dispute in the writ petition/appeal relates to the appointment of respondent No. 4, Asif Hamid Khan, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) on the post of Trade Agent. In the writ petition prayer of the petitioner/appellant, Mukhtar-ul-Aziz, is for quashing the impugned order of appointment dated 13.12.1990 and for a madamus to allow him (petitioner) to continue on the post till proper selection and appointment. By order dated 12.3.1990, a learned Single Judge of this Court referred the case to larger Bench for decision on the points formulated. Feeling aggrieved by observations/findings regarding contractual nature of his employment, terminable at one month's notice by either side, the petitioner preferred appeal in hand under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The dispute being same and the appeal arising from the writ petition itself, both writ petition and appeal were taken up for hearing together.2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that on 15....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2005(1)JKJ382
Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are calling in question the validity of selections and consequent recommendations for appointments made by the J&K; Public Service Commission, (hereinafter called the Commission), to the Government for the posts of Assistant Surgeons. Health & Medical Education Department of the J&K; State vide its No. HT(GAD)131/95 dated 11.12.2002 referred 31 posts of Assistant Surgeons to the Commission. Then vide another communication No. HD(GAD)131/95 dated 20.1.2003, Health & Medical Education Department referred 190 more posts of Assistant Surgeons to the Commission. Three posts of Assistant Surgeons in open merit category were already pending for selection with the Commission. Thus in all the Commission stood referred 224 posts as per the following break-up: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Open merit .. Three previousvacancies-----------------------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3386
ORDERTejinder Singh Doabia, J.1. 'Whenever human dignity is wounded, civilization takes a step backward-flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly half-mast'. Such were the strong sentiments expressed by Dr. A.S. Anan.d, J, later Chief Justice of India, while dealing with the rights of a person who is subjected to custodial violence. (See D.K. Basu v. State (1997) 1 SCC 416 : (1997 Cri LJ 743).2. It is the case of the petitioners that the rights conferred upon them under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution were violated in as much as not only the person but the property belonging to them was also subjected to worst type of violence.3. Before noticing the facts, it would be apt to mention that what was said by the Supreme Court of India in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 : (1997 Cri LJ 743). This decision takes notice of the rights of the citizens. There is no dispute with the proposition laid down in the aforementioned case vis-a-vis rights to whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR2005J& K13,2005(1)JKJ536
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. The dispute in this letters patent appeal arising from a writ petition relates to the Canal Power House, Jammu. The Power House was handed over to the respondent. By the order impugned, the State Government decided to take over it. The respondents challenged the order by a writ petition. By the judgment and order under appeal the impugned order was quashed with a direction to the appellant to give effect to the earlier order. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and others have come in appeal.2. The case of the respondents shortly stated, is that pursuant to a policy decision of the State Government regarding setting up of small power project in Jammu and Kashmir through private entrepreneurship, on 4-7-2001, they came forward with a proposal to revive and modernize Canal Power House, Jammu, which was lying defunct for more than two decades. Earlier, outside agencies had not shown any interest in making investments in the State, and in the circumstances the Chief Minister ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1995J& K36
S.C. Mathur, C. J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to resolve the conflict in views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court on the constitutional validity of categorisation made by the State Government for nominating candidates to be admitted to the Medical courses, M.B.B.S and B.D.S. in various Medical Colleges throughout the country against the seats allocated to the State by the Central Government from the central pool. One Division Bench has held the categorisation to be valid and the other has held it to be invalid. Judgment of the Division Bench upholding the validity was rendered in OWP No. 995/ 1991, Pankaj Gandotra v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, connected with several other petitions of similar nature, decided on 10-8-1992 at Jammu. This Division Bench comprised K. K. Gupta and V. K. Gupta, JJ. Judgment of the Division Bench which negatived the constitutional validity was rendered in OWP No. 2637 of 1991 Qazi Yusra Aslam v. State connected with several writ peti...
Tag this Judgment!