Advocates:
['ALTAF HAQANI', '', 'G M RESHI', 'SHAKIR HAQANI', 'MOKSHAH QAZMI', '', 'N H SHAH', 'M Y BHAT', 'UMAIS KAWOOSA', 'S A MAKROO', 'SHOWKAT ALI KHAN']

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

OWP No.341/2010

J&K STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

…PETITIONER(S)

CORPORATION

Through:-

Mr. Shakir Haqani, Advocate.

Vs.

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

…RESPONDENT(S)

AND OTHERS

Through:-

Mr. Omais Kawoosa, Advocate-for R1 & R2.

Ms. Sahila Nissar, Advocate, vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi,

ASGI-for 3.

None for R4.

CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.

O R D E R(ORAL)

21-09-2021

1)

The instant petition has been filed by the J&K State Road

Transport Corporation against Food Corporation of India. Union of

India and Government of Jammu and Kashmir have been impleaded as

proforma respondents.

2)

In the writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

1. A writ, order or direction including one in the nature

of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated

29/31-07-2006.

2. A writ, order or direction including one in the nature

of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to

implement the unanimous decision of high level

committee chaired by Hon’ble Dy. Chief Minister

dated 28.07.2006.

Sr. No.12

After Notice

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT

2021.09.23 09:52

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

O W P N o . 3 4 1 / 2 0 1 0 P a g e | 2

3. A writ, order or direction including one in the nature

of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to

return the security money for the completed contract

2005-06 at Rs.1.16 crores, the security money of both

for un-operated stations and operated stations

including the amount retained from the running bills

at Rs.7.39 crores, aggregating to an amount of Rs.8.55

crores.

4. A writ, order or direction including one in the nature

of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to

follow the mandate of the judgment of the Apex Court

delivered in the case Maha Nagar Telephone Nigam

Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and

refer the matter to the committee constituted by the

Government vide Govt. order No.756-LD(Lit) of

2005 dated 31-03-2005 or any other dispute

resolution committee as may be constituted by the

Hon’ble Court.

3)

From the nature of reliefs sought by the petitioner, as quoted

hereinbefore, it is clear that the dispute is, primarily, between the

petitioner Corporation and the respondent Corporation. The petitioner

Corporation is a public sector undertaking of Government of Jammu

and Kashmir whereas respondent Corporation is a public sector

undertaking of Union of India. The Supreme Court in the case of Chief

Conservator of Forests v. Collector, (2003) 3 SCC 472, while dealing

with the mechanism of dispute resolution between Government

Departments and Public Sector undertakings, has held as follows:

"14. Under the scheme of the Constitution, Article

131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court

in regard to a dispute between two States of the Union

of India or between one or more States and the Union of

India. It was not contemplated by the framers of the

Constitution or the C.P.C. that two departments of a

State or the Union of India will fight a litigation in a

court of law. It is neither appropriate nor permissible for

two departments of a State or the Union of India to fight

litigation in a court of law. Indeed, such a course cannot

but be detrimental to the public interest as it also entails

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT

2021.09.23 09:52

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

O W P N o . 3 4 1 / 2 0 1 0 P a g e | 3

avoidable wastage of public money and time. Various

departments of the Government are its limbs and,

therefore, they must act in coordination and not in

confrontation. Filing of a writ petition by one

department against the other by invoking the

extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is not only

against the propriety and polity as it smacks of

indiscipline but is also contrary to the