- (1.) THE appellants have impugned in this appeal the order dated 11th september, 2006, passed by the learned Single Judge. This impugned order was passed on an application for modification being CAN No. 6823 of 2006, made by the appellants. In this appeal an application has been taken out for appropriate interim relief in this matter.
(2.) MR. Kapoor, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the learned Trial Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition at all as the writ petitioner, Iftekar Khan has no locus to file the same. If the writ petition is gone through minutely then it will appear that no affectation of right has been made out by Iftekar Khan in order to maintain the writ petition. There has been no case of any nature, either contractual or otherwise, as against the Port authority having been made out. As such, at the very first instance, the writ petition should have been dismissed. Of course it is admitted that at the initial stage, this point was not taken, but that does not mean that the point of jurisdiction cannot be agitated at a subsequent stage, as it goes to the very root of the matter. Iftekar Khan is not the owner of the goods which are lying in the premises; admittedly belonging to the Port authority. Several parties have come forward to claim the ownership. Mr. Kapoor submits that when the writ petitioner has no proprietary right or interest at all, how he can maintain the writ petition, is the first question which ought to have been decided by the learned Trial Judge.
(3.) SINCE this is a question of jurisdiction, we thought that this issue should be resolved at first. It will be apposite to record that this was not agitated earlier and being urged for the first time now. At an earlier stage, the learned trial Judge passed interim order on 20th February, 2006. At that time too it does not appear from the order itself that the point of jurisdiction was taken.;