news details |
|
|
| HC initiates suo-moto action after noticing nexus between revenue officials & litigant | | | Early Times Report
Srinagar, Jan 2: Observing "collusion" between local revenue authorities in Budgam and a litigant, seeking his regularization as driver, the state high court has issued notice to the parties while posting the case after winter vacation.
Taking suo-moto notice, a single bench of the court comprising Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey initiated the proceedings after inspection of the files of Principal District and Sessions Judge Budgam.
"During the course of inspection of the case files of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Budgam, conducted by me in my capacity as being the Administrative Judge for District Budgam, I had the occasion to through the record of numerous case file including the Civil Original Suit titled Fida Hussain v. State of J&K & others, registered as Numbri/51, instituted on 08.08.2015," the court said, observing that the facts of the case apparently disclose that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the local functionaries of the State i.e. Tehsildars of Budgam and B. K. Pora.
In the plaint, the litigant has prayed for a decree to declare him entitled to regularization of his service as driver and for release of all service benefits with effect from 1992/1993 "having completed seven years of service in the year".
"The plaintiff seems to have sued them to achieve what is mutually desired by them. The collusion between them is writ large on the face of the record," the bench said.
The court observed that the plaintiff, who is shown to have been engaged as a casual labour in the year 2000, has seemingly been surreptitiously converted into a class IV employee dehors the rules governing the field, "so much so plaintiff has also placed on record a photocopy of service book which he states to have been prepared."
The Tehsildar Settlement Budgam, the court said, seems to have been the person to manage all this for the plaintiff.
The Sessions court Budgam has already declared the defendants in the suit-Commissioner Secretary Revenue; Regional Director Land Records Srinagar besides Tehsildars of Budgam and B. K. Pora as ex-parte by orders on 16-11-2015 and 08.12.2015 respectively. The session court has asked the plaintiff to produce evidence in support of his case.
"On going through the proceedings of the case files both at Chadoora and Budgam, I have noticed serious irregularities being committed by the Shirishta holders and Process Servers in effecting service of summons on defendants/respondents," the bench said, observing that such irregularities, which have gone unnoticed by the Presiding Officers, cast serious doubt about the functioning of Process Serving Agency in the district.
While the suit was instituted on 08.08.2015, the court said that on 08.12.2015, it has been brought to the stage of recording of ex-parte evidence.
"The trial court has also passed an interim order dated 16-11-2015, directing defendants 3 and 4 (Tehsildars) to release pay of the plaintiff for the period he has worked," the court said, observing that the word 'pay' has a specific connotation in the service rules and is significant in light of the pleadings made in the suit.
"Though this is not the right stage to suppose that the learned trial court would overlook the facts pleaded in the suit or that the collusive nature of the suit would go unnoticed, yet in light of the peculiar facts and the circumstances in which the defendants in the case have remained absent from the proceedings, if served in reality, and have been set ex parte, I think this is a case which calls for a suo motu notice to be taken in terms of the supervisory powers vested in the High Court under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir," the court said and directed its registry to directed to register the case as a suo motu petition and issue notice to the plaintiff, his counsel, the defendants in the suit and to N. H. Shah, AAG representing the Revenue Department.
"List the same before the Court for further proceedings in the first week after the ensuing vacation," the court said. It also directed registry to fax a copy of the order to the Principal District Judge, Budgam, for records, information and the information of the counsel for the plaintiff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
