Inhabitants Of Village Kukerwas And Ors vs U. T. Of J&K And Others

The instant Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) has been preferred against the order dated 26th March, 2021,( impugned herein), passed by the learned writ Court.

The main grievance of the petitioner/appellant was that contrary to the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) for construction of the Panchayat-Ghar at Kukerwas, block, the contractor was raising construction unauthorizedly in a different village, Neegu. It was in that background that a writ petition was preferred, in which, the writ Court, by virtue of order impugned, while issuing notice, directed the respondent No. 2- Deputy Commissioner, Kishtiwar to consider the representation, filed by the petitioner.

Counsel for the appellants not being satisfied with the order impugned, challenges the same on the ground that the writ Court ought to have passed the order of status-quo instead of only directing the consideration of the representation of the petitioners-appellants, inasmuch as, it is stated that, if the construction was permitted to continue, it would cause a loss to the state exchequer. It is also stated that the contractor had since undertaken operation of construction which was required to be stopped immediately. Learned counsel, Mr. Qazi, however, states that after passing of the order impugned by the learned writ Court, a legal notice dated 27th March, 2021, has also been issued by his Office, bringing to the notice of the respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner, the order passed by the learned writ Court on which no action as yet has been taken and that, contractor was allowed to continue with the construction activities.

We have heard counsel for the parties. We feel that the direction issued by the learned writ Court for consideration of the objections highlighted by the petitioners/appellants needs to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner alone, inasmuch as, the entire activities in regard to the construction is undertaken under the supervision and control of the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. It is the Deputy Commissioner who has to decide whether there is any violation of the decision of the Panchayat with regard to the location of the construction of Panchayat Ghar and whether there was any unauthorized change in the location and whether any such change has taken place at all. While we appreciate the concern of the counsel for the appellants that loss may be caused to the exchequer, if the contractor is allowed to continue with the construction activities, yet we feel that if there is any change in the location unauthorizedly, it would be open to the Deputy Commissioner to prevent any such loss which may accrue by passing such orders as he may deem necessary. In the present case we feel that the order impugned does not warrant any interference and it would be open to the writ petitioners-appellants to seek appropriate relief once the objections and the report is submitted before the learned writ Court. The Deputy Commissioner may decide the representation of the appellants, preferably, within a period of two weeks from today. Disposed of accordingly.