Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Converted Into Forum For Pursuing Personal Grudges Under Guise Of Legal Proceedings: J&K and Ladakh High Court

The High Court was considering a petition seeking the quashing of the impugned Order as well as the corrigendum issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar.

The Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal held, "This Court is of the considered opinion that permitting such litigation to proceed would amount to encouraging abuse of the judicial process and would unnecessarily burden the constitutional courts with disputes lacking any real legal foundation. The writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be converted into a forum for pursuing personal grudges under the guise of legal proceedings."

“The corrigendum, therefore, is purely clarificatory in nature and does not effect any substantial modification in the operative portion of the original order so as to independently prejudice the petitioner or furnish a separate cause of action warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is well settled that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable only at the instance of a person who demonstrates infringement of a legally enforceable right. Mere dissatisfaction or apprehension, however strongly perceived, does not confer locus to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has failed to establish any such infringement", it added.

Advocate Nisar Ahamd Bhat represented the Petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

By virtue of the impugned order, the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, was directed to regularize the additional floor raised by the Ward Officer, under the “Deemed Permission” clause contained in the Jammu & Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000, subject to payment of regularisation fee and compliance with the relevant laws and rules, besides issuance of completion certificate in favour of the respondent. The Officer had initially obtained building permission in respect of land situated at Barthana, Qamarwari, Srinagar. The permission was subsequently revalidated. In the meantime, a portion of the land had already been alienated by the Officer. The petitioner alleged that despite such alienation and despite discrepancies in the survey particulars and revenue records, the building permission came to be revalidated by the Official.

The construction activities were thereafter commenced by the Officer in the year 2021, and additional floors were allegedly raised beyond the sanctioned building plan. An application filed by the Officer seeking permission for additional construction came to be rejected by the competent authority. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Officer preferred a revision petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the impugned order whereby the revision petition preferred by the Officer came to be allowed, and directions were issued for the regularisation of the additional construction under the “Deemed Permission” clause contained in the Jammu & Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000, besides issuance of a completion certificate in favour of the Officer. It was in such circumstances that the matter reached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts, the Bench noted that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate how the impugned orders infringed or prejudiced any legally enforceable right vested in her. It was further noticed that the writ petition merely contained a bald assertion that the respondent Officer, being her neighbour, could not have been permitted to raise the construction of a guest house after having sold 90 marlas out of the total land measuring 2 kanals, particularly when the minimum land requirement for such construction was stated to be 2 kanals.

“Except for the aforesaid assertion, no material has been placed on record to establish the manner in which any legal right of the petitioner stands adversely affected by the permission granted in favour of respondent No. 6. Mere vague apprehensions or generalized allegations of prejudice, unsupported by any substantive foundation, are insufficient to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India”, it added.

The Bench noticed that the original order had directed regularisation of the construction through a speaking order and issuance of the completion certificate, subject to the condition that the construction was not violative of the relevant land laws. As per the Bench, by way of the corrigendum, the Tribunal merely clarified that such regularization would be subject to payment of the requisite regularization fee and further observed that the construction was covered by the deemed permission clause under the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000.

“Save for the aforesaid clarification, no new right has been created in favour of respondent No. 6, nor has any vested right of the petitioner been taken away. The procedural directions requiring respondent No. 6 to approach the Commissioner, SMC within the stipulated period, alongwith the liberty reserved to the authorities in the event of default, continue to remain intact”, it added. According to the Bench, the case was indicative of vexatious litigation as the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any subsisting legal injury, yet had sought to repeatedly question proceedings to which she was already held disentitled to participate.

Thus, finding no merit in the reliefs sought by the petitioner, the Bench dismissed the petition while upholding the issued corrigendum and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner’s application for impleadment.

Cause Title: Hajira v. Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal (Case No.: WP(C) 1338/2024)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Nisar Ahamd Bhat

Respondent: Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh, Advocate M. M. Dar

Click here to read/download Order