Arms Licence Scam: J&K&L High Court Declines Plea By IAS Officers Seeking DoPT To Consider Their Representations Before Deciding Sanction

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajnesh Oswal declined to entertain the application, observing that the applicants' apprehension that the authorities would not properly apply their mind unless directed by the Court did not find favour with it.

The application was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn after Senior Advocate Sakal Bhushan, appearing for the applicants, submitted that they may be permitted to pursue their representations before the DoPT.

Through the application, Senior Advocate Sakal Bhushan, appearing with Advocate Rahul Sharma, submitted that the doctrine of deemed sanction could not be applied mechanically and that the authorities and the Court had to undertake a case-by-case assessment.

He further submitted that the applicants were seeking limited relief, namely, consideration of their representations by the competent authority before taking a decision on the CBI's proposal for grant of prosecution sanction.

The Division Bench was not persuaded by the submission that a specific direction from the Court was necessary to ensure proper consideration of the applicants' representations.

The Court observed that the issuance of such a direction to the respondent authorities was unwarranted, particularly when the applicants had an alternative course of pursuing their representations before the DoPT. Explaining the reason for declining the application, the Bench observed,

“The reason why this Court has not accepted the application is that merely the gist of the submission made by learned Senior counsel was that unless the Court directs there will not be proper application of mind by the respondents, which does not seem to find any favour of the Court.”

The Bench accordingly held that the application could not be entertained.

After the applicants' counsel sought permission to withdraw the application and pursue the representation before the DoPT, the Court recorded that the application stood dismissed as withdrawn. When Senior Advocate Bhushan sought liberty for the applicants to avail an appropriate remedy as admissible under law, the Court clarified:

“Needless to say that no such liberty is required from this Court.”

The High Court thus declined to issue any direction to the DoPT regarding consideration of the representations or the decision on the CBI's proposal for prosecution sanction. The application seeking impleadment/intervention was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Bench also directed that PIL, along with connected petitions, be listed on December 23, 2026, on which date Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma was directed to submit a comprehensive report regarding compliance with the orders passed by the Court from time to time.

Appearances:

Mr. S S Ahmed, Advocate in PIL No. 9/2012

Mr. Sakal Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the applicants;

Senior Advocate Vishal Sharma with CGSC Karan Sharma for the respondents; Senior Advocate Monika Kohli with Assisting Counsel Sagira Jaffer.