The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of delivering justice with convenient speed and the limitations and scope of the supervisory powers under Section 104 of the State Constitution.

1. Justice with convenient speed has to be a cherished principle of justice delivery system. Inordinate delay operates harshly so as to create an impression that even if justice is done but appear not to have been done because it neutralizes the impact. Litigants normally expect quick mode of delivery of justice, same is in-keeping with the aforesaid principle but when litigants themselves enormously contribute to the delay, it cannot lie in their mouth to say that, the justice is delayed. Courts of law are bound to deliver justice in conformity with the law, if the litigant by over reacting or showing over smartness contributes to the delay, such position cannot be attributed to the justice delivery system. System is in place but it is for the parties to adhere to the system and to be vigilant at every stage of the proceedings. If a litigant, because of his own shortfalls, applies the breaks in the smooth progress of the trial, it is for him to correct himself, otherwise delay is at his own peril.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent objected the maintainability of the writ petition by stating that no writ can lie against a private person. It is only when main respondent is the Government, Government agency or State or instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12, the remedy of writ petition is available. The dispute relates to property which is purely a dispute inter se the parties. In support of this submission relied on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in OWP No. 1364/2011 captioned Abdul Rehman Dar & ors v. Showkat Ali Bhat & ors. dated 09.11.2011, 2011 (4) JKJ HC-334, wherein while relying on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal captioned Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010 AIR SCW 6387) (hereinafter referred to as Shalini judgment), Court has concluded as under:-

"Neither petitioners allege of the courts below to have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, nor State is made the party, therefore, the writ petition cannot stand the test laid down by the apex court in the judgment reproduced hereinbefore. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed as such along with all CMPs."

3. Every case has its own facts and features so law has to be applied accordingly. It is no more res integra that in the writ petition main respondent has to be either Government or instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12. In the reported judgment distinction has been drawn between Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in the process it has been made clear that the writ petition can be maintained when private parties acting in collusion with State are respondents in the writ petition. It shall be relevant to quote para 64 of the judgment:

"64.lt is well settled that a writ petition is a remedy in public law which may be filed by any person but the main respondent should be either Government, Governmental agencies or a State or instrumentalities of a State within the meaning of Article 12. Private individuals cannot be equated with State or instrumentalities of the State. All the respondents in a writ petition cannot be private parties. But private parties acting in collusion with State can be respondents in a writ petition. Under the phraseology of Article 226, High Court can issue writ to any person, but the person against whom writ will be issued must have some statutory or public duty to perform."

4. Admittedly in the instant petition private individual is a party which apparently is not acting in collusion with the State so normally writ petition cannot be maintained.

5. Again question arise as to whether petition as filed by the petitioners can be termed to be a writpetition or a petition seeking indulgence of the Court in exercise of the supervisory powers under Article 104 State Constitution which is more or less paramateria with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The answer has to be that the insta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document