SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 4

JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
V. K. Jhanji, ACJ
Munshi Ram v. State of J. and K. and Others
Writ Petition | OWP No. 25/1997 | Civil Revision | No. 150/1996



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: S. S. Nanda, S. K. Raina

Judicial review can be exercised over tribunal decisions when gross violations occur, highlighting the importance of accountability in administrative law.

Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act - Sections 225, 229 and 229(3) - Revival of writ petition - Allegations of unauthorized construction against the petitioner, Munshi Ram, were substantiated by evidence, showing serious violations of approved building plans. The Tribunal's earlier approval of compounding was quashed, and the matter was remanded for restoration of original status. (Paras 1, 10, 38)

(B) Judicial Accountability - The court emphasized the necessity for judges to maintain high standards of conduct, free from impropriety to uphold public confidence in the judicial system. Court orders must reflect legislative intent and proper adjudication standards. (Paras 12, 13, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Munshi Ram, sought permission for hotel construction but engaged in significant deviations from approved plans, leading to a series of notices for unauthorized work. Despite these violations, the Tribunal had allowed compounding of the offenses, citing them as not serious—a position later challenged in the petition. (Paras 5, 6, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court found Munshi Ram had committed numerous violations substantially exceeding approved building plans. The Tribunal's flawed findings failed to address the gravity of the violations adequately. (Paras 13, 31, 36)

Issues: The court examined whether the revocation of the Tribunal's order was justified given the alleged severe violations of municipal building regulations and whether judicial review was permissible. (Paras 3, 30-32)

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review powers are not barred by the absolute nature of tribunal orders where gross legal violations are evident. The necessity for public accountability in statutory processes is paramount, and compounding minor violations does not extend to significant breaches affecting public interests. (Paras 32-36)

Result: The writ petition was dismissed, the Tribunal's order set aside, and the status-quo-ante regarding the unauthorized construction was ordered to be restored immediately. The Vigilance Organization was mandated to investigate the complicit actions of municipal officials. (Paras 38-41)

Table of Content
1. reviving the writ petition is justified. (Para 1 , 2)
2. violation of approved construction plans is evident. (Para 5 , 7 , 8)
3. ongoing litigation raises concerns about judicial conduct. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. judicial integrity is paramount. (Para 13 , 14)
5. misconduct must be investigated. (Para 15 , 16)
6. vigilance investigation warranted. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. restoration of status-quo-ante is essential. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. the court can review tribunal decisions. (Para 23 , 24)
9. political and public interests must prevails. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
10. judicial review is not barred. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
11. high court's powers over tribunals are vast. (Para 33 , 34)
12. judicial accountability must be maintained. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
13. decisions must reflect fairness and legality. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)

1. This writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated May 1, 1997 passed in CMP (1A-II/97). However, lately, it was revived and taken on board for disposal on merits and, in terms of order dated 15th December, 2003, notices were issued to all concerned, including the petitioner, Jammu Development Authority, though not figuring in the array of respondents, was also directed to be impleaded as party, respondent No. 1, in the petition, being a necessary party. The circumstances and facts, which led to the reviving of the petition and the subsequent proceedings in the matter, may briefly be stated.

2. Certain complaints were received in the Chief Justice' Secretariat, alleging gross and rampant violation of various statutory laws enacted by the State for planned development of the Jammu city. The complainants lamented inaction and indifference of the authorities saddled with responsibility to ensure compliance with laws regulating building activities and adherence to laws like the Municipal Act , Development Act and Building Operations Control Act etc. Clout at different levels was alleged to have resulted in throwing to winds the established norms and laws otherwise meant for public good. One such complaint dated 26th May, 2003 was addressed to the Acting Chief Justice (one of us - V. K. Jhanji) by a forum named in the complaint as "Judiciary Protection Forum" signed by some Vijay Singh, Secretary of the Forum. It is not borne out from the complaint whether the forum is registered or not. The identity of the complainant is not fully disclosed in the letter. We are conscious that complaints or petitions, which do not identify fully the makers thereof, cannot be acted upon on the judicial side. Nevertheless, the complaint contained certain verifiable facts and allegations directly concerning this Court. Certain reports were also published in local English weekly, Journey Line, in its issue No. 45 released in November, 2003, supported by succinct material on the same subject, with a reflection of unpleasant events, bearing an inkling of diminishing public confidence in this highest temple of justice in the State. The complaint and the newspaper report are on the file. To ascertain the facts, records of certain case files, including the record of writ petition, OWP No. 25/97, were called for perusal from the Registry through Registrar General of the Court. The record of the writ petition as also that of a civil revision was reported to be not traceable in the record room of the Court. Registrar General was directed to enquire into the matter and make efforts to trace out the records. The record keeper produced a chit stating that the record of these case files had been taken by the then Deputy Registrar Judicial in September, 1999. Ultimately, the records of the writ petition along with the record of civil revision petition No. 150 of 1996 titled 'Harbans Lal v. Pawan Kumar' were deposited in the record room by the then Deputy Registrar Judicial of the Court, namely, Shri Kartar Singh, presently Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. It may be relevant to mention




































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top