‘Doctrine of finality can’t be defeated indirectly’
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 16: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has observed that the writ jurisdiction of this court cannot be converted into a forum for pursuing personal grudges under the guise of legal proceedings while dismissing what it termed as litigation bearing all the indicia of vexatious litigation.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal made the observations while rejecting a petition filed by Hajira, a resident of Mughal Mohalla, Srinagar challenging orders of the J&K Special Tribunal relating to regularization of additional construction at Barthana, Qamarwari.
The petitioner had sought quashing of order dated May 28, 2024 and the corrigendum issued thereto by the J&K Special Tribunal whereby the revision petition preferred by Fayaz Ahmad Rangrez was allowed and the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, was directed to regularize the additional floor raised by him under the “deemed permission” clause contained in the Jammu & Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000, subject to payment of regularization fee and compliance with relevant laws and rules besides issuance of completion certificate in his favour.
The petitioner had also sought quashing of order dated September 26, 2023 passed by the Tribunal whereby her application seeking impleadment as party respondent in the revision petition was dismissed.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal had adopted a novel procedure by issuing a corrigendum after passing the final order and granting additional relief without there being any formal application from respondent.
It was argued that the corrigendum had been issued by the Tribunal on its own as if the Tribunal was dealing with an administrative matter rather than a judicial matter and that the method adopted by the Tribunal was unknown to law.
However, the High Court held that the principal issue for consideration was whether the petitioner possessed the requisite locus standi to maintain the writ petition particularly in view of the categorical findings returned by the Tribunal while rejecting her impleadment application.
The High Court observed that the Tribunal, while rejecting the impleadment application through a detailed and reasoned order dated September 26, 2023, had specifically held that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings and that the controversy sought to be projected by her essentially pertained to questions of ownership and title which lay beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Tribunal.
“This court finds itself in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal,” Justice Nargal observed, adding the petitioner had failed to demonstrate as to how the impugned orders infringed or prejudiced any legally enforceable right vested in her.
“Mere vague apprehensions or generalized allegations of prejudice, unsupported by any substantive foundation, are insufficient to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India”, the High Court observed.
With regard to the corrigendum, the High Court held that the same did not introduce any substantive or material alteration in the original order and that the operative directions substantially remained unchanged.
The High Court observed that the original order had already directed regularization of the construction through a speaking order and issuance of completion certificate subject to the condition that the construction was not violative of relevant land laws, while the corrigendum merely clarified that such regularization would be subject to payment of requisite regularization fee and that the construction was covered by the deemed permission clause under the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000.
The High Court further observed that the petitioner had admittedly allowed the order dated September 26, 2023 rejecting her impleadment application to remain unchallenged for nearly one-and-a-half years and, therefore, could not now indirectly assail the same by challenging the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal.
“Permitting such a course would render the doctrine of finality otiose and would strike at the very root of judicial discipline,” the High Court observed and reiterated that the settled legal proposition that what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.
The High Court further observed that the tenor of pleadings, nature of allegations levelled against respondent and repeated attempts made by the petitioner to obstruct the proceedings despite having already been held to be neither a necessary nor proper party unmistakably suggested that the litigation appears to be actuated by personal animosity against respondent.
“Such conduct reflects an endeavour not to vindicate any legal right, but rather to keep the controversy alive with the apparent object of obstructing the culmination of proceedings which otherwise stand concluded in accordance with law,” the High Court observed.
Describing the case as bearing “all the indicia of vexatious litigation”, the High Court held that permitting such litigation to proceed would amount to encouraging abuse of judicial process and unnecessarily burden constitutional courts with disputes lacking any real legal foundation.
Accordingly, the writ petition along with connected applications was dismissed.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
