Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory Of J And K And Others on 4 March, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory Of J And K And Others on 4 March, 2025

Author: Puneet Gupta

Bench: Puneet Gupta

                                                                             Sr. No. 08
                                                                             Regular


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                          AT SRINAGAR

                         LPA 111/2023 in[OWP 50/2012] CM(3628/2023)
                                             c/w
                                        CCP(D) 33/2023

     MUSHTAQ AHMAD BHAT                                      ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)

     Through:      Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate

                                             Vs.
     UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS                             ...Respondent(s)

     Through:      Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA

     CORAM:

     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
                                        ORDER

04.03.2025

LPA No. 111/2023

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is

aggrieved by the order dated 09-05-2023 passed by the learned

Single Judge in a writ petition bearing OWP No. 50/2012.

2. Briefly stated, the case is as follows:

3. The appellant herein, who was the petitioner before the learned

Single Judge, is undisputedly a commission agent of the Animal

Husbandry Department.

4. Shop No. 6 situated at Goni Khan, Amira kadal, Srinagar

belongs to Srinagar Development Authority. It was given on

lease to the Animal Husbandry Department. The appellant

herein, being the commission agent of the Animal Husbandry
Department was occupying Shop No. 6 and selling the products

of Animal Husbandry Department as the agent. The Animal

Husbandry Department evicted the appellant from the said

premises against which the appellant preferred a Civil Suit for

Permanent Injunction where the learned court below held in his

favor and passed a decree against Animal Husbandry

Department that, in the event the appellant had to be evicted

from the premises, the procedure established by law shall be

followed, and only thereafter could he be evicted. Undisputedly,

the Srinagar Development Authority was not a defendant in the

aforementioned civil suit.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in order to

achieve indirectly what the Animal Husbandry Department

could not achieve directly, they got the Srinagar Development

Authority to evict the appellant as a trespasser. The said action

on behalf of the Srinagar Development Authority is challenged

as illegal as no notice under the Public Premises Act was ever

served upon the appellant.

6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

there was no necessity to serve any notice upon the appellant. In

order to clarify his stand, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that the privity of contract was between the Srinagar

Development Authority as the landlord and the Animal

Husbandry Department as the lessee. The appellant herein was
only occupying the said premises on behalf of the Animal

Husbandry Department as its agent and that there was no privity

of contract between Srinagar Development Authority and the

appellant herein and, therefore, the appellant was not a person

aggrieved as no cause of action arose in his favour in order to

sustain a petition under Article 226.

7. We are in agreement with the submissions put forth by the

learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Before a petition under Article 226 can be filed and sustained,

the appellant must show that he is a person aggrieved whose

legal or constitutional right has been infringed by the act of State

and secondly, there is no equally efficacious alternate remedy

available.

9. Here in this particular case, undoubtedly, there was no privity of

contract between the Srinagar Development Authority and the

appellant herein. The question of issuing a notice under the

Public Premises Act would only arise if the lessee, which is the

Animal Husbandry Department, had approached the court as an

aggrieved person, which is not the case in this appeal.

10. Therefore, this court does not find any perversity in the order

dated 09-05-2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. The

appeal is dismissed.

CCP(D) No. 33/2023

11. In view of the order passed in LPA No. 111/2023, nothing

survives in this petition. The same is dismissed.

                                    (PUNEET GUPTA)             (ATUL SREEDHARAN)
                                        JUDGE                        JUDGE

                       SRINAGAR
                       04.03.2025
                       Aamir




Amir Rashid Sofi
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
06.03.2025 11:38