news details |
|
|
| HC warns petitioner for filing successive writ petitions seeking same relief | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Jan 21: Vacation Judge of J&K High Court Srinagar Wing Justice Sanjay Dhar deprecate the practice of filing successive writ petitions for the same relief after failing to get the interim relief in the earlier writ petition(s). The present case is a classic example of the same. The petitioner, after having failed to get an interim order for release of loan installment in earlier writ petition W.P (C) No.379/2020, filed a second writ petition W.P.(C) No.1216/2020 for a similar relief. Court further observed that ordinarily, this Court would have imposed heavy costs upon the petitioner for resorting to this unhealthy practice, but, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a student, a lenient view of the matter is taken and the petitioner is warned to be careful in future in such matters.
This signficiant order has been passed in a petition filed by Mubashir Ashraf Bhat seeking direction against the respondents for release of all the installments of fee in her favour and transfer the same to M/S Khwaja Younus Ali Medical College, Bangladesh, so that she is able to pursue her MBBS course. Further, a Writ of Certiorari for quashing of order/letter/communication dated 31.01.2020 has also been sought.
During the pendency of aforesaid writ petition, a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 1216/2020 came to be filed seeking a direction to the respondents to release the installments of education loan as per the breakup given in the letter of sanction dated 24.12.2018 with a further direction to release the installments of loan to M/S Khwaja Younus Ali Medical College, Bangladesh.
Justice Sanjay Dhar after hearing both the sides observed that it is clear that Writ Court has a limited jurisdiction in contractual matters. Ordinarily, the remedy available for a party complaining of breach of contract lies for seeking damages or for enforcing specific performance of terms of the contract in a Civil Court. It is only in cases where a Public Authority has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably or with malafide intention that the Writ Court would step in.
Court further observed that so far as the action of the respondent-Corporation directing the petitioner to refund the first installment of loan amount is concerned, the same also appears to be justified because the petitioner admittedly had, on her own, transferred the first installment of loan from the Community Based Medical College, Bangladesh to M/S Khwaja Younis Ali Medical College, Bangladesh without informing the respondent-Corporation which is a breach of terms and conditions of the sanction letter.
With these observations, High Court do not find any scope for this court, particularly in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to interfere into the action of respondent Corporation in not releasing the installments of loan in favour of the petitioner, the same being purely a matter relating to contractual obligations of the parties. The issue whether there was any delay on the part of the respondent-Corporation in sanctioning of loan in favour of petitioner, which according to her resulted in cancellation of her admission in the Community Based Medical College, Bangladesh, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in these proceedings. It would be open for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and agitate this aspect of the matter for obtaining appropriate relief against the respondent-Corporation. With these observations Court dismissed both the petitions. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
