19 Dec 2022 8:30 AM GMT
Nominal Index :Case Title : Laxman Das Vs Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 242Case Title : Khalid Zahoor Khan Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 243Case Title : Masrat Yousuf Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 244Case Title : Meraj Ud Din Malik Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 245Case Title : Bashir Ahmad Bhat & Ors Vs Syed and Ors 2022 LiveLaw...
1) [Departmental Action] Enquiry Officer Cannot Return A Finding On Allegation Which Is Not Part Of Chargesheet: JKL High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Laxman Das Vs Union of India & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 242
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that an enquiry officer cannot return a finding on the allegation which is not part of the chargesheet.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed, "The mandate of the enquiry officer holding disciplinary enquiry is to conduct enquiry into the charges framed against the delinquent and restrict his finding to the charges framed. He cannot return his findings beyond the terms of his reference i.e., beyond the charges to be investigated or enquired into."
2) Selection Committee's Recommendation To Enlarge Waitlist Does Not Confer Any Right On Candidates Unless Govt Approves: JKL High Court
Case Title : Khalid Zahoor Khan Vs UT of J&K & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 243
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a mere recommendation by the Selection Committee for enlarging the wait list, without there being a decision of the Government in accepting the said recommendation, does not give any right on the concerned candidates to seek enlargement of the waiting list.
3) Persons Engaged In Statutory Corporation Under Special Contract Do Not Hold 'Civil Post' Under Article 311: JKL High Court
Case Title : Masrat Yousuf Vs UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 244
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that where a person is engaged in a statutory corporation on the basis of a special contract, Article 311 has no application. The provision relates to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.
"The engagement of the petitioner seemingly is an ordinary case of a service contract terminable at any time under the terms provided therein the engagement order. Thus, the case setup by the petitioner and the contention of the counsel for the petitioner urged in this regard in general and the applicability of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution in particular therefore, is not entertainable in law", Justice Javed Iqbal Wani held.
4) Exchange Of Proprietary Land In Lieu Of Encroached Public Grazing Land Not Permissible Anymore: JKL High Court Clarifies.
Case Title : Meraj Ud Din Malik Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 245
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently clarified that the exchange of proprietary land in lieu of encroached kahcharai (grazing) land is not permissible anymore.
The clarification was issued by a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had sought directions upon the respondents for grant of permission in his favour for exchange of six marlas land Kahcharai land at Kawarhama Baramulla district in lieu of proprietary land of same area in the vicinity.
5) J&K Land Acquisition Act | Deputy Commissioner/ District Collector Not Competent To Decide Whether Land Is Needed For Public Purpose: High Court.
Case Title : Bashir Ahmad Bhat & Ors Vs Syed and Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 246
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the Deputy Commissioner/ District Collector is neither the Government nor the authority competent to record the satisfaction as to whether a particular land is needed for public purpose or not as mandated under Section 6 of J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990.
6) JKL High Court Holds State 'Strictly Liable' To 5-Yr-Old Permanently Disabled Due To Electrocution, Orders 30 Lakh Compensation
Case Title : Aatif Irshad Kumar Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 247
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court awarded compensation of Rs 30.2 lakhs to a five-year-old boy disabled for life by 33,000 KV HT line laid by the Power Development Department (PDD). The liability for negligence cast upon the functionaries of the State would lie within the parameters of "strict liability" under law of Torts, the Court reiterated.
7) Person Challenging Preventive Detention Order At Pre-Execution Stage Must Show Ex-Facie Illegality: JKL High Court
Case Title : Harvinder Pal Singh alias Rambo Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 248
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a preventive detention order can be challenged at the pre execution stage, provided the petitioner/detenue satisfies the court that the detention order is clearly illegal.
The bench comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Puneet Gupta, while hearing an appeal against dismissal of plea to quash preventive detention, observed:
"If it is found that it is clearly illegal then certainly he cannot be asked to go to jail and then challenge the detention order. The appellant must be able to demonstrate that the order of detention is ex facie illegal on the grounds as mentioned in the Alka Subash Gadia's case (supra)..."
8) Contention Not Specifically Denied In Pleadings, Attracts Inference Of Admission: JKL High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Javaid Ahmad Sheikh Vs Mohammad Iqbal Thoker
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 249
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that the contention raised by a petitioner, if not specifically denied by the Respondent in his reply, could only draw an inference that the contention of the Petitioner is being admitted by the Respondent.
The bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal wani made the observation while allowing the plea moved by the Petitioner for transfer of a criminal case filed against him under Section 138 of NI Act before Sub Judge at Pulwama, apprehending physical danger from Respondent (complainant).
9) High Court Dismisses Plea Requiring BCCI To Hold Fresh Elections To J&K Cricket Association, Amend Its Constitution
Case Title : Desh Rattan Dubey Vs Board of Cricket Control In India.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 250
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a plea requiring BCCI to initiate the process of amendment of constitution of J&K Cricket Association and to hold fresh elections of the body.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta dismissed the plea as non-maintainable, stating that it was a miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of case. The bench reiterated that when proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition, it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application, particularly in respect of a matter, which provide a fresh cause of action.
10) When Writ Petition Dismissed In Default Is Restored, All Orders Passed Therein Are Automatically Revived: JKL High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Mafooza Bano Vs State of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 251
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that as corollary to the restoration of a writ petition, dismissed in default, all orders passed would automatically get revived and restored to the original position.
11) "Skill Cannot Be Restricted To A Particular Age": JKL High Court Quashes GO Insofar It Regulated Grant Of License To Photographers Based On Age
Case Title : Javid Ahmad Akhoon & Ors Vs UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 252
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Thursday observed that the Government can place necessary restrictions for smooth functioning of a particular trade, however, such restrictions must not be unreasonable particularly when the same are aimed to regulate the trade of unemployed skilled youth of a troubled area.
The bench observed,
"Skill cannot be restricted to a particular age especially in today's advanced era and it does not further appear to be achieving any kind of object, not to speak of a reasonable object. The condition in respect of deposition of annual fee of Rs. 10,000/- also appears to be unreasonable as the petitioners are admittedly performing their professional duties in the tourist areas and are solely dependent upon the tourist inflow which obviously lasts for only few months".