Dark Mode
Image
Logo

“Total Non-Application of Mind”: J&K High Court Quashes Magistrate’s Order for Being Unreasoned, Directs Presiding Officer to Attend Judicial Academy

“Total Non-Application of Mind”: J&K High Court Quashes Magistrate’s Order for Being Unreasoned, Directs Presiding Officer to Attend Judicial Academy

Safiya Malik

 

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul set aside the order of the Trial Court dismissing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that the dismissal lacked reasoned analysis and constituted a cryptic order devoid of judicial application of mind. It directed the Trial Court to re-decide the application after seeking objections from the respondents and hearing both sides. Additionally, the Presiding Officer was recommended for a judicial refresher course.

 

The petition before the High Court was filed by two individuals residing in Umarabad HMT, Srinagar, who sought restoration of an iron gate that had allegedly been demolished by staff of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC). The petitioners contended that the gate, erected in 2009 at the entrance of their private pathway, was removed in violation of an interim order dated 24 October 2024, passed by a competent civil court.

 

Also Read: CBI Investigation Should Not Be Ordered on Vague Allegations’: Supreme Court Quashes High Court Directive, Says Probe Transfers Can’t Be Done as a Matter of Routine

 

The gate, forming part of the entrance to a private lane shared by the petitioners, had reportedly been installed over proprietary land. The petitioners alleged that no construction activity was underway and that the existing structures, including the gate, were longstanding. According to the application under Section 151 CPC filed before the Trial Court, certain field staff members of the SMC, purportedly under the influence of a local land mafia, used electric cutters to remove the gate without prior notice or legal justification. This action was said to have occurred despite the interim protection granted by the civil court.

 

In their Section 151 CPC application, the petitioners prayed for a restoration of the status quo ante with specific reference to the reinstatement of the iron gate as it stood on 24 October 2024. They also sought the intervention of the Station House Officer of Police Station Shalteng, Srinagar, to ensure the restoration of the property’s original condition.

 

The primary grounds raised in challenging the Trial Court’s order included:

 

  • The failure to issue notice to the respondents before deciding the application.
  • The absence of a reasoned judgment or any meaningful engagement with the facts or law applicable.
  • The alleged disregard of the Court’s interim order.
  • The assertion that the Trial Court failed to apply its judicial mind, resulting in a cryptic order that undermined the principles of natural justice.

 

The petitioners supported their claims with documentary evidence purporting to establish their ownership over the property and the private status of the land on which the demolished gate was installed.

 

The Trial Court, however, dismissed the application with the brief observation that “for the reasons stated in the order of the application IA/3, the application also lacks merit and is therefore dismissed.”

 

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul recorded that “Section 151 CPC is a saving clause in CPC, enshrining inherent powers in the court by providing that nothing in CPC shall be deemed to have limited or affected inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.”

 

The judgment further stated, “Section 151 CPC does not formulate any new doctrine but is only a legislative recognition of the well-known principle that every Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitia and to do that real justice for administration of which alone it exists.”

 

Regarding the nature of judicial reasoning, the Court quoted extensively from precedent, stating, “It is well settled that judicial order necessarily has to be a reasoned one, where the mind of the Court needs to be revealed and cogent and convincing reasons need to be stated.” The Judge observed that the order passed by the Trial Court reflected “total non-application of mind on the part of the Presiding Officer.”

 

In assessing the adequacy of the Trial Court’s explanation, the High Court observed: “These expressions cannot be, in view of well settled legal position, said to be reasons given by the Trial Court but can be said to be cryptic inasmuch as Trial Court has not discussed what provisions of Section 151 CPC provide for, what petitioners plead in their application, what they seek for on the basis of the case set up in the application, and why and what are the reasons to dismiss the application.”

 

Justice Koul also referred to the principle of recording reasons as integral to judicial legitimacy: “Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. Without them one is left with a shell. The shell provides neither solace nor satisfaction to the litigant.”

 

The judgment stated that cryptic and unreasoned orders erode public trust and judicial accountability. Citing Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi, the Court noted: “Doing what the High Court had done presented a veneer of judicial reasoning, bereft of the substance which constituted the heart of the judicial process.”

 

Also Read: No Statutory Precedence Between Planning and Acquisition Laws’: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Rohtak Land Acquisition, Rejects NCRPB Act Challenge

 

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 30 December 2024 passed by the Municipal Magistrate (1st Civil Subordinate Judge), Srinagar. It directed that:

“The Trial Court shall decide the application under Section 151 CPC preferred by petitioners before it, after getting response/objections from other-side and after hearing both the parties.”

 

Further, noting the deficiencies in the Trial Court’s handling of the matter, the Court directed administrative action:

“Presiding Officer, who has passed order impugned, needs to be sent/ deputed to J&K Judicial Academy for refreshment course. In this regard, the Registry of this Court shall place a copy of this order before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for passing of appropriate orders.”

 

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sajad A. Mir, Advocate

 

Case Title: Hakim Nazir Ahmad and Anr. v. Commissioner, SMC Srinagar and Ors.

Case Number: CM(M) no.95/2025

Bench: Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul

 

[Read/Download order]

Comment / Reply From