news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses petition challenging J&K State Reorganization Act | | | Early Times Report
SRINAGAR, Sept 11: Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey dismissed petition seeking quashment of J&K State Reorganization Act 2019.
In the petition filed by Abdul Gani Bhat seeking quashment of J&K State Reorganization Act recently passed by the Indian Parliament, bisecting the State into two Union Territories-may be declared as without jurisdiction, non-existent in law and also seeking direction to respondents not to interfere with the autonomy of the State in matters other than the three ceded to the Indian Union.
The petitioner also submitted that the uncalled for curfew and restrictions may be got removed from Kashmir as detailed in the head note, forthwith, so that people are able to live and enjoy their lives, undisturbed and peacefully, without fear.
It is further submitted in the petition that the people of Kashmir may be compensated appropriately for their illegal confinement in their homes, and snatching their cherished liberties, which are the most precious and crowing of fundamental rights of the people, as held by the Supreme Court of India though its umpteen judgments, by clamping curfew and restrictions, from August 5, 2019 till date and the Respondents may be directed to come out with the reasons for imprisoning I keeping under house arrest, the political leaders and others of Kashmir and of its adjoining districts.
Justice Ali Mohmmad Magrey after hearing petitioner in person whereas ASGI Tahir Majid Shamsi for the Union of India observed that it is seen from the record of the petition that on its presentation, the Registry of the Court on 16.08.2019 reported that the writ petition was defective in as much as copy of the Act impugned by the petitioner in the petition had not been appended with the petition. In this connection, a notice was issued to him by the Registry on 19.08.2019 pointing out to him the deficiency and requiring him to remove the same in terms of Rule 88(1) of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999. The record further depicts that copy of the above notice was duly received by the petitioner on the same day, but he has not removed the deficiency till date. Not only that, none of the orders, Acts or laws spoken of in prayer clause (iii) of the petition by the petitioner, as quoted above, which he seeks to be quashed, have been specified by him, nor have copies thereof been placed on record of the petition. It hardly needs a mention here that the requirement of law is that something that is challenged in a petition must be placed before the Court and on record of the petition, as its annexure.
Justice Magrey observed that given the said factual scenario, since the Apex Court is seized of the issues raised before this Court in this petition in the various writ petitions pending before it, as enumerated above, this Court cannot entertain this petition and proceed to hear it. However, there are two options available to this Court: first being to adjourn this petition and to wait for the final decision of the Supreme Court in the above writ petitions; and the second is to dispose of this writ petition, leaving the petitioner free to approach the Supreme Court to file a separate writ petition there or to seek intervention in the writ petitions pending before the Supreme Court, to put across his point based on his perceptions of law and facts.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
