An application seeking fresh directions after the disposal of a writ petition may not be maintainable and could be considered an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant application, bearing CM No.2668/2022, has been filed by the applicants, seeking following reliefs:

'In the premises, it is respectfully submitted that the respondent No.1 may be directed to initiate the process of amendment of constitution of JKCA and hold its election thereby electing its office bearer as they are guilty of disobedience of the order of the court dated 23/03/2021 passed in LPAW No 14/2019 and other connected matters as they have failed to conduct in a manner as called for by this Hon?ble Court to amend the constitution and hold the elections and remove respondent no.2 to 5 as they are conflict of interest as per the Lodha recommendation approved by the Hon?ble Supreme Court and appoint independent committee having no conflict of interest.

OR

In alternative this Hon?ble court is requested to fix time line for amendment of the constitution and holding its elections or in alternative order passed on 23/03/2021 in LPAW No 14/2019 and connected matters may be reconsidered in the light of the basic JUDGMENT passed in OWP No 787/2017 dated 13/10/2017 which was later on confirmed by division bench of this court in LPA No 196/2017 dated 6/12/2017 and punished them for contempt for disobeying the order of this Hon?ble Court by not amending constitution of JKCA.'

2. As is clear from the perusal of the application, applicants seek fresh directions as during the course of the arguments learned counsel for the applicants has categorically stated that he is not pressing for review of the order, but, seeks directions as prayed for in the application.

3. The arguments were heard on the question of the maintainability of the present application.

4. Admittedly, the present application has been filed in WP(C) No. 4524 of 2019 titled Des Rattan Dubey Vs. Board of Control of Cricket in India and others. The said writ petition along with connected LPA as also other petitions came to be decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 23.03.2021. Certainly, the applicants are seeking fresh directions in the application including fixing of timeline for amendment of the constitution of Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association (hereinafter in short, "JKCA?) and holding its elections as is clear from the prayer made in the application.

5. On the question of maintainability of present application, learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in K.K.Velusamy Vs. N.Palaanisamy decided on 30.03.2011, Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and others decided on 25.03.2004 besides banking on Rule 67(2) of J&K High Court Rules, 1999 to contend that even after disposal of the writ petition, an application is maintainable.

6. A bare perusal of the judgments (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would show that none of the judgments provides for exercise of powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure when there is no lis pending before the Court and as such has no applicability to the case in hand.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 has argued that the application is not maintainable as the same has been filed by the persons, who were not party to the original petition which was disposed off by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.03.2021, as such, the applicants have filed this application without filing application seeking impleadment. It is further argued that application can be filed in a disposed off matter under 67(2) of the High Court Rules but that application can be filed only by the parties to the petition for correction in case of any typographical error only in the original judgment. Here in this case neither there is error in the judgment nor the application has been filed by any of the party to the petition so this application is not maintainable and requires to be dismissed.

8. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.6, Mr. Pant, has relied upon a judgment of the