Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Dismisses Bhole Bhandari Charitable Trust’s Application To Withdraw WP In Amarnath Langer Case

The Court dismissed a formal withdrawal application, which sought to withdraw a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution with liberty to file a fresh one on the same subject matter.

A Single Bench of Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani held, “In the facts and circumstances of the case, even an application of the petitioner-trust under Order 1 Rule 10 Clause 2 CPC for impleadment of the proposed parties would not be justified, as the proposed parties as hereinbefore observed, do not seem to be necessary parties, whose presence will enable the Court to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the petition effectively and completely. Again, in the opinion of the Court, even an application on behalf of the petitioner-trust under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC would be unfounded in the given circumstances because for the determination of the real questions in controversy, the petitioner-trust is supposed to have sued the appropriate party, vested with the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter. Any further deliberation is likely to touch the merits of the case, which is not allowed while disposing of the instant application.”

Senior Advocate P.N. Raina appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Mohsin Qadri represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner submitted that it had a good and proven track record of over 28 years in rendering free public welfare services during Shri Amarnathji Yatra at Panjtharni, including providing meals (Bhandara), night shelter facilities, mobile phone charging, and solar-powered solutions. The petitioner-trust alleged "arbitrary and non-speaking refusal" by the Respondent-Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB) to issue the letter regarding Expression of Interest (EOI) for holding of langer as usual at Panjtharni Pahalgam.

This refusal, according to the trust, "has not only deeply affected the members of the trust, but has also caused immense distress to the thousands of devotees, who are seeking facilities of bhandara or contributing for the same, thereby hurting their religious sentiments." The petitioner-trust sought directions/writs "in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondents-board to forthwith issue the offer, inviting letter/Expression of Interest (EOI) followed by necessary permission (LOI)" for rendering bhandara services during SANJAY 2025. It is further alleged by the petitioner-trust that the action of the respondents-board "suffers from arbitrariness and violates the Article 14 of the Constitution" and "appears to be a clear case of targeted exclusion".

Court’s Observations

The High Court held, “In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no sufficient ground appears to be made out for allowing the petitioner-trust to seek the withdrawal of the petition with permission to file a fresh one in respect of the same subject matter. The main ground basing the withdrawal application is that the alleged security concerns raised by the learned arguing counsel for the respondents in his pleadings and also during his arguments, being one of the reasons for not communicating the offer to express willingness to the petitioner-trust for organization of langer during SANJAY 2025, has necessitated the impleadment of the Central and UT Governments as co-respondents being necessary parties and in the said backdrop, certain new pleadings need to be added to the petition to address the said concerns adequately.”

“Withdrawal with liberty cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances, where same does not seem to be imperative for elucidation of the real matter in controversy and instead appears to be aimed at giving an extrajudicial colour to the subject matter,” the Court stated.

The Bench remarked, “Where the Respondents/Defendants already arrayed in the petition/suit are exclusively competent to address the subject matter, no further impleadment can be allowed under the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) or Order XXIII(1) CPC, as the same may under some circumstances prove oppressive for the other party.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “For the foregoing discussion, there seems to be no merit in the application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application.

Cause Title: Bhole Bhandari Charitable Trust v. Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board Jammu/Srinagar & Ors. (WP(C) No. 1185/2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate P.N. Raina; Advocates J.A. Hamal, Raghu Mehta and Nigham Mehta

Respondents: Senior Advocate Mohsin Qadri; Advocate Anuj Dewan Raina

Click here to read/download the Judgment