Decided on August 13,2020

Daily Subah Kashmir Appellant
Union Territory Of JAndK Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



RAJNESH OSWAL J. - (1.)The appellant has challenged the order dated 19.06.2020 passed in CM No. 2023/2020 in WP(C) No. 909/2020, whereby interim relief sought by the appellant for restraining the respondents from causing any interference in the peaceful occupation and possession qua the shop Nos. 50, 51, 52 and 53, located at Rehabilitation Complex,Jahangir Chock, Srinagar, has been rejected.
(2.)The brief facts as narrated by the appellant in the appeal are that the appellant was handed over the possession of the aforesaid shops by the Economic Reconstruction Agency (ERA) in the year 2016 but formal order of allotment was never issued in favour of the appellant. The appellant thereafter filed the civil suit. Besides praying for other reliefs he also sought declaration to the effect that the appellant is entitled to issuance of proper allotment orders qua the shops mentioned above and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants therein to issue proper allotment orders in favour of the appellant. However, subsequently the aforesaid suit was withdrawn on the assurance that the case of the appellant for formal allotment would be considered. As the claim of the appellant was not considered, the present writ petition was filed for directing the respondents to consider and issue formal allotment orders qua shops Nos. 50, 51, 52 and 53 located at the Rehabilitation Complex, Jahangir Chowk, Srinagar and direction in the nature of prohibition, thereby restraining the respondents from causing any interference in the peaceful occupation and possession of the petitioner qua the shops mentioned above. Alongwith the writ petition, an application for interim relief was also filed. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.06.2020, declined the ex- partead-interim relief and posted the matter for filing objections andfurther ordered that the matter will be considered after the objections are filed by other side. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present intra-court appeal has been filed.
(3.)The appellant has challenged the order impugned on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had managed possession of the four shops, where he is running his Newspaper, is factually incorrect as the appellant had been put into possession by the ERA in the year 2016 itself. Further the appellant figures at Sr. No. 74 in the list of rehabilitators of commercial enterprises, asprepared by ERA. The appellant further pleaded that in identical matters, this Court had protected other tenants and the petitioner is also similarly situated but the learned Single Judge has not treated the appellant in parity qua the other similarly situated persons, who were protected by this Court.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.