“Very Shocking”: J&K&L High Court Flags 4-Year Delay in Deciding Appeal, Questions Recovery of ₹2.82 Crore Under Himayat Scheme

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has expressed strong displeasure over an unexplained delay of more than four years in deciding a statutory appeal, even as coercive recovery and penalty proceedings were initiated against a project implementation agency under the Himayat Scheme.Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while hearing a writ petition filed by Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd., described the situation as “very shocking” and sought an explanation from the authorities as to why an appeal filed as far back as May 2022 continues to remain pending, yet fresh recovery notices running into crores have been issued.Background:The dispute arises out of the implementation of the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY), a flagship skill-development scheme launched by the Ministry of Rural Development in 2014 to promote sustainable livelihoods for rural youth. For Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, the scheme was implemented through a special centrally funded project known as “Himayat”, operated through the Himayat Mission Management Unit (HMMU).Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd., along with another entity, formed a consortium and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for skilling 1,000 candidates. The project was time-bound and governed by the DDU-GKY Guidelines, 2016. Subsequently, in October 2021, the consortium was dissolved by a Mutual Separation Agreement, leaving Eduspark as the sole entity responsible for the project, without execution of any fresh MoU with HMMU.In November 2025, HMMU issued a penalty notice imposing a 2% penalty amounting to ₹5.65 lakh, followed by a recovery notice seeking recovery of ₹2.82 crore along with 10% annual interest, proposed to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Aggrieved, Eduspark approached the High Court challenging both notices as arbitrary and illegal.Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mr. Rahul Pant, assisted by Mr. Vikram B. Trivedi, Mr. Sunil Tilok Chandani and Mr. Rahul Sharma, argued that the penalty and recovery notices were non-speaking, arbitrary and passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It was contended that Clause 9 of the MoU did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Alternatively, it was argued that even if an arbitration clause existed, the writ petition was maintainable in view of manifest arbitrariness and absence of an efficacious alternative remedy.On the other hand, Mr. Raman Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appeared for the respondents and sought time to file a response, particularly on the issue of maintainability.Court's Observations on Maintainability:At the threshold, the High Court noted that the MoU contained an arbitration clause and raised a serious question on the maintainability of the writ petition. The Court observed that the petitioner had not initially explained how it sought to bypass the arbitration mechanism and therefore directed filing of a supplementary affidavit on this aspect.Justice Nargal made it clear that the issue of maintainability would be examined first, before the Court ventures into the merits of the dispute.In one of the most striking observations of the order, the Court took strong exception to the prolonged pendency of the statutory appeal. It remarked, “This is very shocking that an appeal, which was preferred by the petitioner way back in the month of May, 2022 till date has not been decided by the appellate authority and is pending adjudication for more than four years.”The Court noted that while the appeal remained undecided, the authorities went ahead and issued fresh recovery and penalty orders, aggravating the prejudice to the petitioner.To ascertain whether the delay was attributable to the petitioner or the authorities, the High Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit explaining and justifying the inordinate delay in deciding the appeal. The Court also directed production of the scanned record of the appellate authority on the next date of hearing.Notice was issued to the respondents, and the Court confined the response, at this stage, strictly to the issue of maintainability and the reasons for delay in adjudicating the appeal.The Court deferred passing of interim relief for the time being but clarified that failure of the respondents to file their response would result in consideration of the petitioner's interim application on merits. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 02 March 2026.Case Title: Eduspark International Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

“Very Shocking”: J&K&L High Court Flags 4-Year Delay in Deciding Appeal, Questions Recovery of ₹2.82 Crore Under Himayat Scheme

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags