Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh today dismissed a petition challenging the rehabilitation and allotment of shops in the Sector-6 Shopping Complex of Batamaloo, saying that the judicial process cannot be misused to obstruct lawful administrative action.
The court upheld the allotment process in the complex and observed that while access to justice was a constitutionally guaranteed right, the courts cannot be allowed to become instruments of delay or abuse.
The bench presided over by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal cautioned that any attempt to misuse the judicial process strikes at the very heart of the justice delivery system and may in future invite exemplary costs in order to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings.
As many as 18 petitioners had assailed the rehabilitation and allotment exercise carried out pursuant to court’s judgment dated May 14, 2012, passed in a large batch of petitions.
The primary contention of the petitioners was that a committee constituted under the court’s directions had exceeded its mandate by co-opting additional officers and seeking assistance of a sub-committee.
The bench held that the directions issued in 2012 by the court were aimed at ensuring a fair, transparent and objective identification of eligible claimants and that the committee was merely an instrumentality to achieve that purpose.
It ruled that seeking assistance for verification, spot inspections and scrutiny of claims, running into hundreds, was implicit in the government constituted committees mandate and did not amount to usurpation or delegation of powers.
The core committee, the court said, remained intact and actively participated in decision-making.
It noted “the record reveals that the core committee, as envisaged by the order of this court, remained intact and actively participated in the decision-making process,” adding, “the role of additional officers, including the Deputy Commissioner and other functionaries, was merely facilitative in nature, confined to verification of records, spot inspections and antecedent checks. Such assistance cannot be construed as usurpation or delegation of powers.”
The court also dismissed the objection to the issuance of public notices, observing that inviting claimants and granting them an opportunity of hearing was a facet of fairness rather than a deviation from the judicial mandate.
It observed that the issue of allotment by draw of lots had already been conclusively settled and could not be re-agitated through the present petition.
It accepted the objection of locus standi raised by the authorities as well as original allottees, saying that the petitioners were found ineligible and failed to meet the prescribed criteria.
In the absence of any enforceable legal or fundamental right, the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to stall a lawful process, it said.
The court expressed grave concern over the prolonged operation of the interim order granted in June 2013, observing that it caused substantial loss to the public exchequer as well as to the private respondents — the original allottees.
“The interim order dated 03.06.2013 has remained in operation for more than twelve years, thereby causing serious and irreversible prejudice to the state exchequer as well as to the private respondents,” the court observed, adding, that 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.
Underlining that the shops were constructed from public funds for commercial use, the court observed that they remained unutilized, thereby depriving the State of lease premium, licence fees, rent, and other statutory revenues that would otherwise have accrued on a regular basis.
As per information placed on record by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation, the court said that the prolonged litigation resulted in a loss of Rs 1.42 crore towards rental dues and Rs 1.50 crore towards premium, aggregating to Rs 2.92 crore in respect of 108 shops from 2009 up to March 31, 2026.
It also noted that the original allottees had financed the construction of the shopping complex on a self-finance basis, collectively depositing over Rs 1.73 crore, without which the project could not have been executed.
The prolonged delay deprived them not only of their investment returns but also of lawful commercial opportunities, the court noted.
It further took note of what it described as dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioners, including an attempt to seek adjournment at a belated stage on the ground of engaging a new counsel.
Such conduct, the court said, was aimed at protracting the proceedings and possibly seeking a change of bench, and could not be countenanced, particularly in a matter pending since 2013.
The court emphasised that frivolous, repetitive and strategically motivated litigation must be curbed with a firm hand, “lest the very majesty of law be reduced to a casualty of avoidable delay and misuse.”
