Long-standing stay on shops allotment at Batamaloo lifted
*Says courts can’t be misused to create stagnation
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Dec 17: Bringing a prolonged legal battle to a close, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rehabilitation and allotment of shops in the Sector-6 Shopping Complex at Batamaloo, Srinagar and vacated the interim stay that had stalled the process for over 12 years. The prolonged stay, the High Court noted, caused serious prejudice to both the public exchequer and hundreds of genuine claimants awaiting rehabilitation.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
Moreover, the High Court has cautioned against misuse of judicial process and underlined that frivolous, repetitive and strategically motivated litigation strikes at the very heart of the justice delivery system and must be curbed with a firm hand.
The judgment delivered by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal arose from a writ petition challenging the rehabilitation and allotment process of shops in the Sector-6 Shopping Complex, Batamaloo constructed following demolition of kiosks for road widening. The process was undertaken pursuant to a 2012 judgment, which had constituted a High-Level Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir to identify eligible claimants.
The petitioners questioned the Committee’s recommendations, its expanded composition, issuance of public notices and the proposed allotment of shops through a draw of lots. On June 3, 2013, the petitioners got the interim order, which continued to be operational after a lapse of more than 12 years as a result of which over one hundred rightful claimants have suffered irreparably.
After hearing counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “as far as challenge to expanded composition of the core Committee is concerned, the panel acted strictly in tune with the 2012 directions. Co-opting additional officers and constituting a Sub-Committee for verification did not amount to illegal delegation of powers, as the core decision-making authority always remained with the original Committee”.
“Seeking ancillary assistance for verification, record scrutiny and spot inspection was not only permissible but necessary, given the scale and complexity of the exercise involving hundreds of claimants”, the High Court clarified.
The High Court dismissed the argument that issuing public notices exceeded the Committee’s mandate. It held that inviting claims through advertisements was a facet of fairness and transparency, aimed at ensuring that all genuine stakeholders were heard before final recommendations were made.
On merits, the High Court recorded that the petitioners were found ineligible on specific and documented grounds, including discrepancies in age, parentage and identity, absence of Letters of Intent, failure to deposit mandatory premiums, subletting of kiosks in violation of norms and submission of incomplete or contradictory documents. Several petitioners were minors at the relevant time or did not figure in official records, while others had transferred or sublet their rights illegally, the High Court added.
Accepting the objections raised by the respondents, the High Court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi, having failed to establish any enforceable legal, statutory or fundamental right. It observed that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to stall a lawful and transparent administrative process.
The High Court reiterated that the issue of allotment by draw of lots stood conclusively settled in the 2012 judgment. With 112 eligible claimants for 108 shops, the authorities were legally bound to follow this method. The Court ruled that the matter could not be reopened in the guise of a fresh writ petition.
“The writ petition was earlier dismissed in default and has been restored only at the instance of nine petitioners. These petitioners cannot be permitted to espouse the cause of all original writ petitioners, nor can they seek to be permitted to stall the otherwise concluded process affecting the rights of more than hundred claimants, who have already been found eligible upon due verification”, Justice Nargal said.
The High Court noted that the interim order dated 03.06.2013 has remained in operation for more than 12 years, thereby causing serious and irreversible prejudice to the State Exchequer as well as to the private respondents. During this prolonged period, the public authority has been prevented from putting the commercial shopping complex to its intended and productive use, resulting in persistent loss of substantial public revenue. The shops, which were constructed from public funds and meant to be allotted for commercial exploitation, have remained unutilized, thereby depriving the State of lease premium, license fee, rent and other statutory charges that would otherwise have accrued on a regular basis.
The High Court took serious note of the financial fallout of prolonged litigation, recording that the continued interim stay caused a loss of nearly Rs 2.92 crore to the Srinagar Municipal Corporation in terms of rental dues and premium. It observed that a valuable public asset remained un-utilised for years, depriving the State of legitimate revenue and genuine claimants of livelihood.
Furthermore, the private respondents would have benefitted financially had the allotments been made within time. The prolonged delay, occasioned entirely due to the pendency of these proceedings, has deprived them of the commercial use of the premises for which they had invested their resources. The loss occasioned to them, therefore, is not merely financial but extends to the deprivation of lawful business opportunities that would naturally have accrued had the process not been stalled, the High Court noted.
Dismissing the writ petition as misconceived and devoid of merit, the High Court vacated the interim order dated June 3, 2013. It directed the official respondents to proceed expeditiously with the allotment of shops in Sector-6 Batamaloo to successful claimants, in accordance with law and without further wastage of time.
The High Court found it imperative to issue a clear and unequivocal caution that the judicial process is not to be treated as a tool for obstruction or delay. “Unscrupulous elements who initiate frivolous or vexatious litigation, prolong proceedings without just cause, or seek to stall administrative and developmental activity by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court on untenable grounds, must be mindful that such misuse of process strikes at the very heart of justice delivery system”, the High Court added.
Repeated attempts to create unwarranted stagnation or to derail lawful action by resorting to dilatory practices will invite strict consequences in appropriate cases, the High Court. It reiterated that while access to justice is a constitutional guaranteed right, the judicial forum cannot be permitted to be abused for ulterior purposes.
“Any attempt to abuse process of court strikes at the very heart of justice delivery system. In future, such conduct may attract exemplary costs to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings”, Justice Nargal concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
