news details |
|
|
| Bench differs on hotel tycoon's case | | |
ET REPORTER
Jammu, July 23: In an interesting and rare case, two judges of the High Court hearing a Public Interest Litigation challenging allotment of land to a renowned hotel tycoon and two others differed on the nature of case and the verdict. The case, therefore, had to be referred to a third judge designated by the Chief Justice.
A Public Interest Litigation had been filed by society against allotment of a piece of land in Srinagar to Mushtaq Chaya –a renowned hotelier of the state –and two others. Mushtaq Chaya who is also owner of the Hotel Jehlum Resorts and two other persons Mehraj-us-Din and Tariq Ahmed Ganai has been allotted a prime land by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation which was challenged by the Peoples Welfare Society through its chairman Ghulam Mohd Bhat challenging the allotment of Govt land on various grounds.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Nirmal Singh and Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain, there has been a difference of opinion of the Judges. Justice Nirmal Singh has held that the petition filed by the petitioner's society does not involve any public interest, rather, from the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that it is a publicity oriented litigation devised to plead the cause of employees of the CONFED who have already challenge the order of the Govt regarding the acquisition of land and for their adjustment, payment of salary. Justice Nirmal Singh further held that the petition has been filed with some ulterior motive and the same entails dismissal with costs to the tune of Rs 25000/- to be deposited by the Society to the legal service authority.
On the contrary, Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain, has held that though the record pertaining to the acquisition and allotment of land has been produced and Chief Secretary has filed his reply, but the same does not spell out the grounds for the allotment of land to the private persons, when, the land had already been reserved for Adda and development of Srinagar city. It has been further held that in view of these facts, merits of the case cannot be looked into till a detailed reply as required by the Court is not filed by the Chief Secretary or by the Revenue Commissioner and directed to file detailed reply within two weeks.
According to the rule 36 (2) of J&K High Court Rules 1999 "If the Judges composing the bench are equally divided on any point, they shall state the point upon which they differ and the case shall than be heard upon that point by one or more of the judges designated for the purpose by the Chief Justice and such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority (if any) of the judges who have heard the case including those who first heard it". In view of the rule the case was placed before the Chief Justice which was refereed to Justice JP Singh for hearing.
Justice JP Singh after hearing Sr. Adv ZA Shah and Advocate BA Khan appearing for the respondents at length and directed the registry to list the case on august 14, if the bench is available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
