Ancillary Tasks Can Be Delegated, Core Decision Must Remain With Court-Mandated Committee: J&K And Ladakh High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal on Tuesday (16 December 2025) dismissed a petition by shopkeepers disputing the rehabilitation and allotment process for shops in Sector-6 Shopping Complex, Batamaloo, Srinagar, including objections to the Committee’s recommendations and the assistance taken from a Sub-Committee. The Court held that the law bars outsourcing the essential decision, but allows delegation of supportive work, and that once a judicial mandate is given to a Committee, it may adopt reasonable ancillary mechanisms so long as the final decision remains with the Committee. It also vacated the interim order and directed the authorities to implement the Committee’s recommendations and proceed with allotment to successful claimants after verification.
The writ petition was instituted by multiple petitioners claiming rehabilitation and allotment of shops in the Sector-6 Shopping Complex, Batamaloo, Srinagar, which was constructed following demolition of existing khokhas due to road widening. The petition arose from the implementation of an earlier judgment dated 14.05.2012, whereby a High-Level Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, was constituted to determine eligibility of claimants for shop allotment.
The petitioners sought quashing of the recommendations made by the Committee in favour of certain respondents and other claimants, challenged the constitution of an expanded committee, questioned the issuance of public notices inviting claims, and asserted that draw of lots was unnecessary. They further claimed priority allotment on the ground that they were operating existing shops at the site.
The official respondents contended that the committee process was undertaken strictly in compliance with court directions, that the petitioners were found ineligible on verification, and that the writ petition lacked locus standi. Private respondents supported the official stand and pointed out prolonged prejudice caused by an interim order operating since 03.06.2013.
The Court examined the constitution and functioning of the Committee, the verification process, the eligibility findings, and the objections raised by the petitioners.
The Court observed that “the directions contained in the judgment dated 14.05.2012 were aimed at ensuring a fair, transparent and objective identification of eligible claimants” and that the constitution of the Committee was “an instrumentality to achieve that object and not an end in itself.”
It recorded that the core Committee envisaged by the earlier judgment remained intact and that the role of additional officers was “merely facilitative in nature, confined to verification of records, spot inspections and antecedent checks.” The Court stated that such assistance “cannot be construed as usurpation or delegation of powers.”
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court recorded that “while there cannot be sub-delegation of essential functions, non-essential functions can be sub-delegated to be performed under the supervision and authority of the delegate.” It further stated that “so long as the essential decision-making function is performed by the delegate, the burden of performing the ancillary and clerical tasks need not be shouldered by the primary delegate.”
On the challenge to public notice, the Court observed that “the process of notice and hearing is a facet of fairness and not a deviation from judicial mandate.”
With respect to the petitioners’ eligibility, the Court recorded detailed findings of discrepancies, subletting, non-submission of documents, minority at the relevant time, and absence of letters of intent, noting that the claims were rejected on “specific, cogent, and supported” grounds.
On draw of lots, the Court recorded that “the number of eligible claimants exceeds the number of shops available” and that the earlier judgment had “categorically directed” allotment by draw of lots in such a situation.
Regarding locus standi, the Court stated that “in absence of any enforceable legal, statutory or fundamental right, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to perpetuate uncertainty or to stall the implementation of a lawful process.”
The Court also recorded that the interim order had remained in force for over twelve years, causing serious prejudice to the State exchequer and eligible claimants.
The Court ordered that “the writ petition is found to be misconceived and devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with all connected applications.vThe interim order dated 03.06.2013 shall stand vacated.”
The Court clarified that “dismissal of the writ petition shall not come in the way of the official respondents to proceed further and implement the recommendations of the Committee in accordance with law and the judgment dated 14.05.2012 passed by this Court.”
The official respondents were ordered to “proceed with the allotment of shops in question to the genuine claimants/private respondents, who have been declared as successful in the draw of lots for allotment of shops expeditiously in Sector-6 Batamaloo, Srinagar after due verification.”
On costs, the Court recorded that the matter would ordinarily warrant exemplary costs; however, “the Court refrains, at this stage, from saddling them with costs.” The Court additionally issued a caution that “the judicial process is not to be treated as a tool for obstruction or delay.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. G. A. Lone, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Bikram Deep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. M. I. Dar, Advocate, with Ms. Sana Imam, Advocate
Case Title: Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Case Number: OWP 733/2013
Bench: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
