Upgradation of Jammu airport
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 10: Division Bench of High Court comprising Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Rajesh Bindal today dismissed a petition seeking directions to the authorities that 61 families may not be dispossessed from their houses and shops to pave the way for extension of Jammu airport.
While dismissing the application, DB observed, “conduct of the applicants needs to be deprecated. It is nothing else but bench hunting. If their conduct is seen and what transpired during course of the hearing of the earlier CM No.4961/2019, earlier Writ Petition WP(C) No.2834/2019 and subsequently during the course of hearing of the present application, it is seen that though applications and the writ petitions are filed by selective persons, who are some of the residents, however, most of the residents of the area are present in person in court”.
“It is evident that CM No. 4961/2019 was filed by 26 residents of the area praying that either they be allowed to be impleaded as party respondents in the Public Interest Litigation or they may be allowed to intervene to safeguard their interest. When the applicants were not able to persuade the court to pass any order in their application, writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 2834/2019 came to be filed during pendency of the application”, the DB observed.
“The writ petition was filed by 14 residents, out of which two parties were common. The writ petition was filed with the prayer that notice issued directing the petitioners to vacate the land in their possession be set aside and direction be issued to the official respondents to rehabilitate the petitioners therein by providing them plots. It was nothing else but bench hunting”, the DB said..
The PIL No. 35/2018 was listed before the Division Bench whereas the writ petition was to be listed before the Single Bench, as per roster. When the matter was listed before the Single Bench on July 30, 2019, the registry was directed to list the matter along with the PIL. Thereafter, the writ petition was also taken up along with PIL No. 35/2018.
During the pendency of the writ petition, in terms of the offer made by the administration, plots were allotted to all the outstees in the draw of lots held in their presence. They were handed over possession thereof. They had undertaken to handover vacant physical possession of the area to the authorities concerned on or before 20.11.2019.
At the time of passing of the order on September 20, 2019, CM No. 4961/2019 filed by some of the residents was also disposed of. Thereafter, two writ petitions bearing WP(C) Nos. 4201/2019 and 4202/2019 came to be filed. These were listed before the Single Bench on 18.11.2019. Some of the petitioners, who appeared in person, when were not able to convince the court to issue notice or grant any interim relief, sought adjournment on the ground that their counsel was not available. The writ petitions were adjourned to 30.12.2019.
“When the residents of the area were not able to get any relief in the two writ petitions, which were listed before the single bench, the present application has been filed by the applicants who are already before this court as petitioners in WP(C) No. 4201/2019. The prayer made in the application is substantially the same as was made in the writ petition”, the DB observed, adding, “the idea of filing present application in the petition is nothing else but an effort of bench hunting”.
“Such an application filed in the public interest litigation is totally misconceived, hence deserves to be dismissed”, the DB said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel