news details |
|
|
| HC Rejects Charitable Trust's plea for fresh petition in Amarnath langer dispute | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 6: Justice Mohd Yousaf Wani of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while rejecting an application seeking withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to file afresh, held that the jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution is not shackled by procedural technicalities but nor is it an unregulated space for speculative or unjustified litigation maneuvers.
"A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be allowed to be withdrawn on the basis of any unjustified ground on the pretext that the jurisdiction of the writ Courts is not circumscribed or limited by procedural technicalities, after all there has to be a sound and justified ground for seeking the withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same subject matter," observed Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani while dismissing the withdrawal plea filed by Bhole Bhandari Charitable Trust.
The petition was filed by the Trust, seeking judicial direction to the Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB) to issue an Expression of Interest (EOI) and subsequently a Letter of Intent (LOI) for establishing a bhandara (free langer services) at Panjtharni for the annual Amarnath Yatra, 2025.
The petitioner claimed to have served yatris selflessly for over 28 years and asserted that denial of permission by SASB, despite repeated representations, was arbitrary, non-speaking, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, when the matter was partly heard, the petitioner filed an application seeking to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one. It contended that due to objections raised by SASB's counsel specifically on alleged security concerns there was a necessity to implead the Union of India and UT Governments of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh as parties, and to amend pleadings comprehensively.
The withdrawal application was strenuously opposed by SASB, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Mohsin Qadri along with Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina asserted that the withdrawal was neither unconditional nor grounded in law as required under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC, and that there was no formal defect in the original writ petition warranting re-litigation.
The respondents further argued that the security concern cited by the petitioner as a new fact was never raised formally by the Board in its pleadings. On the contrary, SASB clarified that the decision to withhold permission for SANJAY 2025 was based on previous violations by the Trust specifically, unauthorized dumping of construction material and operation beyond the closure date during SANJAY 2024.
High Court after examining the petition, withdrawal application, objections, and the rival arguments in full detail, held that the petitioner's grounds for withdrawal with liberty were unjustified and lacking in legal necessity. The Court noted that the principal claim that impleadment of government bodies was essential due to supposed security objections was without basis. The court further stated that the respondents had neither made security the sole or primary ground in their reply, nor had they argued it during hearings in a manner warranting impleadment of new parties.
The Court noted that there was no formal defect in the writ petition as per Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC, nor any newly emergent fact that could not be addressed through permissible procedural amendments. Instead, the court held that the request for withdrawal appeared more aimed at taking a second bite at the cherry.
Importantly, the Court made clear that SASB's authority over such matters is exclusive and discretionary. It emphasized that the petitioner Trust had implicitly accepted this, thereby negating the need for further impleadment of government entities. The Court held that issuing invitations for organizing langers during the yatra was a matter of policy and administrative discretion, and not something for judicial micromanagement.
".. It is impliedly accepted by the petitioner trust that issuance of offer/invitation to intending langer organizers for organizing langer during the Annual Shri Amarnathji Yatra is the discretion of the respondents-board. The case in hand is distinguishable from a tender process, in which no qualified and eligible bidder can be stopped from participating in the tender process", Justice Wani pointed.
The court also took exception to the Trust's implied suggestion that the Court must allow withdrawal merely because writ jurisdiction is flexible. "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 bench underscored.
Stressing that litigation cannot be permitted to evolve into a strategic exercise of trial and error where parties seek repeated opportunities for procedural correction the Court held that even if an application were filed under Order I Rule 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
