AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 1889/2018 which came to be disposed of without impleading the appellants herein as party respondents with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Crime Branch, Jammu to take action in the light of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Samba on 28.12.2018.
Feeling aggrieved of the aforementioned judgment and order, the present appeal was filed along with an application seeking leave to file the same. It was stated that even when the appellants were directly affected by the said order, the petitioner-respondent No. 6 herein had deliberately not incorporated the appellants as party respondents and obtained the ex-parte order on the very first date of the hearing. Being satisfied with the assertion made by the appellants-applicants the leave to appeal was granted and hence the present appeal.
When the matter was taken up, Mr. Rajesh Kotwal caused his appearance on behalf of respondent No. 6.
Mr. B. S. Salathia, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants states that since the writ Court was persuaded to decide the petition on the very first date of hearing on the basis of the order passed by the learned CJM dated 28.12.2017, it was oblivious of the fact that the said order has already been challenged in a revision before the learned Session Judge, Samba, who vide its order dated 09.08.2018 directed the SSP, Crime Branch, Jammu not to proceed in the matter. It was, thus, urged that since the remedy of revision had already been availed by the appellants, it was not brought to the notice of the writ court which proceeded to decide the same.
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, reiterates the submissions, which were advanced before the writ Court.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the appellants herein were the necessary party in the writ proceedings and ought to have been impleaded, as such and also should have been given an opportunity of being heard. We are also convinced that since appellants had already filed a revision petition in which the direction had been issued, the writ Court ought to have been apprised of that fact also before a final decision could be taken.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 18.09.2018 is held to be unsustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. The writ Court shall consider the matter afresh. The appellants shall be figured as respondents No. 6 and 7 in the writ petition and shall be given liberty file their response. Parties shall appear before the writ Court on 24.10.2018.