HC reprimands trial court

Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Dec 7: The High Court has reprimanded the trial court for making coercive orders and abusing process of law against the Srinagar Development Authority with regard to allotment of a piece of State land to an individual without issuing a notice and hearing the SDA and directed the lower court to proceed in accordance with law in the matter.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul said the court feels constrained to make certain observation in respect of the manner in which the trial court (Sub Judge, Passenger Tax, Srinagar) has proceeded with the case. Justice Koul observed that the trial court while adjudicating upon the case has gone too far and manifestly abused the process of law at the face of court proceedings.
Court recorded that it is quite surprising that an individual approached the court to seek a direction in the name of State Agency (SDA) to allot him a piece of State land at a place which is highly valuable from commercial aspect merely on the ground that he has applied for it and is ready to abide the terms of allotment order and the court in absolute disregard to all the rules and laws on the subject not only proceeds to entertain such vague plea but also issues process against the State-Agency (SDA).
Court also added that the trial court did not stop here but also ordered an order of status quo with respect to the shop in question as also proceeded to seek implementation of such order by resorting to coercive methods to pressurize the (SDA) authority to file compliance of such illegal order.
“The trial court does not require to be reminded that there is a set procedure provided for allotment of State land and none is clothed with a right to be necessarily allotted a piece of State land merely on applying for it unless the persons satisfies the requirements of the applicable rules”, Justice Koul said.
Court while referring Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure which provides inherent powers to trial court said, such powers cannot and must not be construed to be used for facilitating a wrong and such power court said, is required to be exercised well within the cannons of law to uphold the rule of the law and not vice versa.
There is not provision, court said, contained in the Development Act which provides for dispensation of the requirement of notice as required under the said Act. “Therefore, there is no room even for a presumption that the requirement of the notice might be dispensed with by the trial court before passing the orders against the State Agency”, read the judgment.
“One wonders as to how the trial court has passed an interim order without first deciding the preliminary objection raised by the respondent-SDA in opposition to the plea filed by the aggrieved person, but the trial court did not ironically address this issue”, Court adds.
Court directed the trial court to take up the matter and decide the same on merits by first taking up the application filed by the SDA for rejection of plea and the application seeking vacation of the order for non-compliance to provisions of Section 48 of the Development Act.