AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kilam, J.—There is no force in this writ petition. The Petitioner was serving as a Ghat Munshi. On some complaint having been made against
him, he was dismissed on 18th January, 1952. This took place much earlier than the promulgation of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution
(Application) Order. It has been held in a number of rulings that Constitution cannot be applied retrospectively.
As such assuming that the Petitioner has a cause of action, yet a writ petition is not competent. It is true that if the order of the Revenue Minister
were without jurisdiction, I would have felt no hesitation in treating that order as a non-existing order and would have given the Petitioner 'the relief
sought by him. But it is clear from Cabinet Order No. 639-C of 1952 that the Revenue Minister had full authority in the matter and that the order
passed by him was within his jurisdiction.
The order passed by him may or may not be strictly according to rules or the Revenue Minister may not have interpreted the rules in the manner I
would like them to be, but that would not mean that his order is without jurisdiction. I felt the necessity of entering into this discussion as an
argument was advanced by the petitioner's learned Counsel that the order of the Revenue Minister was without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel
based his argument on the following facts:
The Petitioner was dismissed by the Director, Food Control, on 18th January, 1952. On appeal, the Dy. Revenue Minister set aside the
petitioner's dismissal and ordered the petitioner's re-instatement and a fresh inquiry. The Revenue Minister, while exercising his powers of
supervision, set aside the order of his Deputy and ordered the removal of the Petitioner from service on 10-7-53.
The petitioner's learned Counsel submits that the powers of the Dy. Revenue Minister and the Revenue Minister are concurrent and as such the
order of the Revenue Minister is without jurisdiction. But the Cabinet Order referred to above lays down that the Deputy Revenue Minister shall
work under the general control of the Revenue Minister. General control, in my opinion, is comprehensive enough to include revision of the Dy.
Revenue Minister's orders by the Revenue Minister. Under these circumstances, I find no force in this writ petition which is rejected.