*Declines to intervene in industrial unit row
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 2: In a significant judgment with wide implications for parties seeking public law remedies in essentially private disputes, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has strongly reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to adjudicate private disputes rooted in property, tort or contract law.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
Moreover, it has held that entertaining such a petition would not only blur the well-established boundaries between private and public law remedies but would also set an undesirable precedent of allowing parties to bypass the ordinary forums of civil adjudication by clothing their grievances in the language of constitutional rights.
These observations were made by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while dismissing a writ petition filed by Shafeeq Ahmad Mir, original allottee of an industrial unit in Lassipora, challenging the transfer of his unit to a private limited company. The High Court ruled the petition as non maintainable citing multiple legal infirmities including gross delay, suppression of material facts and the private nature of the controversy.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking quashing of an order issued by the Jammu and Kashmir State Industrial Development Corporation (SIDCO) on June 29, 2018, which had allowed the conversion of his proprietorship concern M/s S A Steel Rolling Mills into a private limited company M/s Mir S A Steel Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd. He alleged that the change was carried out without his knowledge or consent and was based on forged or fraudulently obtained documents.
After hearing both the parties and analyzing the pleadings and documentary record, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal framed and addressed several core legal issues to test the maintainability of the petition.
“The issues—validity of signatures, alleged fraud, breach of agreements and enforceability of contracts are disputed questions of fact that require trial, oral evidence and cross-examination. These cannot be adjudicated in summary writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution”, the High Court said.
“The dispute was of a purely private nature arising from contractual and proprietary rights. The mere involvement of SIDCO or issuance of official No Objection Certificates (NOCs) did not confer a public law character on the dispute. No statutory duty or Constitutional violation by public authorities was demonstrated”, Justice Nargal said, adding the petitioner had approached the court in 2023-five years after the disputed order and execution of documents in 2018.
While the petitioner attempted to justify the delay by alleging discovery of fraud, the High Court noted that he had full knowledge of the documents in 2018 itself, as he had lodged an FIR the same year. Hence, the delay was held as fatal.
The High Court further observed that the petitioner had deliberately failed to disclose the very documents he was now challenging, including a registered lease deed signed by him as Director of the private company. These were only brought on record after objections were raised. Such concealment, the High Court held, amounted to abuse of the judicial process and reflected lack of bona fides.
Noting that petitioner had already availed civil remedies and initiated proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass available legal remedies, especially in matters involving commercial and property disputes.
“The writ jurisdiction is not designed to supplant civil courts in adjudicating private disputes hinging on contested facts and documentary evidence”, the High Court said, adding “entertaining such a petition would set an undesirable precedent and dilute the sanctity of Article 226”.
“This court is also conscious of its obligation to maintain judicial discipline, coherence and procedural efficiency. Entertaining such a petition would not only blur the well-established boundaries between private and public law remedies but would also set an undesirable precedent of allowing parties to bypass the ordinary forums of civil adjudication by clothing their grievances in the language of constitutional rights”, Justice Nargal concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
