Judicial Process Not A Tool To Obstruct Or Delay Rehabilitation : J&K And Ladakh High Court Vacates 12-Year Stay On Srinagar Shop Allotments
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed a writ petition challenging the rehabilitation and allotment process for shops in the Sector-6 Shopping Complex, Batamaloo, Srinagar. The petitioners questioned the committee-led identification of eligible claimants and sought allotment without a draw of lots. Finding the petition misconceived and devoid of merit, the Court vacated the 12-year-old interim order dated 3 June 2013 and allowed the authorities to proceed with implementation of the committee’s recommendations. It directed the official respondents to complete allotment, after due verification, to claimants found eligible in the draw of lots. The Court recorded that the restraint kept 108 shops unallotted and led to an estimated ₹2.92 crore loss in premium and rental revenue, besides affecting eligible claimants.
The petitioners filed OWP challenging the rehabilitation and allotment process of shops in the Sector-6 Shopping Complex, Batamaloo, Srinagar, undertaken in compliance with an earlier High Court judgment dated 14.05.2012 passed in a batch of writ petitions. In the instant petition, they sought reliefs including quashing of the Committee’s recommendations made in favour of private respondents (respondents 9 to 86 and other claimants), a declaration that the “extended committee” was constituted in violation of the judgment dated 14.05.2012, and directions to allot shops to the petitioners (including on a priority basis) while also challenging the need for a draw of lots.
The judgment records that, in compliance with the Court’s directions, the Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir co-opted additional members including the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, Commissioner SMC, and Vice Chairman SDA, issued wide public notices, and examined claims supported by documents. The official respondents’ case noted that the writ petition was dismissed in default on 30.05.2024 and restored only for nine petitioners, with arguments confined to those petitioners. The Court also recorded that the High-Level Committee found 112 eligible claimants for 108 available shops, requiring allotment through draw of lots as earlier directed.
The Court recorded that the petition “challenges the rehabilitation and allotment process of shops in the Sector-6 Shopping Complex, Batamaloo, Srinagar, which was undertaken in compliance with the judgment dated 14.05.2012.” It noted the post-2012 process adopted by the Committee, including that “the Committee headed by Divisional Commissioner co-opted three more members viz Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, Commissioner Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC), and Vice Chairman Srinagar Development Authority (SDA) to make it a broad based committee” and that public notices were issued inviting claimants to submit documentary material for objective scrutiny.
On the petitioners’ challenge to allotment by draw of lots, the Court held that the governing position had already been settled earlier. It recorded that, “vide its judgment dated 14.05.2012,” the Court had “categorically directed that in the event the number of eligible claimants exceeds the number of available shops… the allotment shall be made strictly by way of draw of lots.” The Court further stated that the earlier round had held “draw of lots is the only appropriate, fair and just method for allotment in such circumstances,” and that after verification the Committee found “112 eligible claimants for 108 available shops,” making the draw of lots a mandatory consequence. It therefore concluded: “Once the issue of allotment by draw of lots stands conclusively settled by this Court, the same cannot be re-agitated or reopened in the guise of the present writ petition.”
The Court accepted the objection on locus standi, recording that the reply affidavits showed the petitioners were found ineligible and had failed to satisfy eligibility criteria, and 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.”
On delay and abuse of process, the Court noted the long pendency and impact of interim protection, recording that “the petition has been pending since 2013, and the interim order has continued to operate to the serious detriment of the respondents,” and that further adjournment would defeat the interests of justice. It assessed the conduct of the petitioners as an attempt to obstruct final adjudication, stating: “there was a clear attempt to prolong the proceedings and stall the final adjudication of the matter, thereby abusing the process of law and wasting the precious judicial time.”
The writ petition was held to be “misconceived and devoid of any merit” and was “dismissed along with all connected applications. The interim order dated 03.06.2013 shall stand vacated.”
The Court clarified that the dismissal “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… without any further wastage of time,” and, as a consequence, “directed them to proceed with the allotment of shops… to the genuine claimants/private respondents, who have been declared as successful in the draw of lots… expeditiously… after due verification.”
The matter would “ordinarily warrant the imposition of exemplary costs” but “refrains… from saddling them with costs,” while issuing “a clear and unequivocal 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, Dy. AG.; 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.
