AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By these applications, the applicant/ appellant is seeking permission of this Court to file the appeal without enclosing therewith the certified copy of
the impugned judgment dated 24th of November, 2020 passed in WP(C) No.1547/2020 as well as the requisite Court fee, stamp papers, etc.
On the set of facts and the grounds urged, coupled with submissions made at the Bar, both the applications are allowed and the applicant/ appellant
shall do the needful immediately upon removal of the restrictions by the Government on account of outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic.
CM disposed of as above.
This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th of November, 2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.15474/2020, whereby the petition of the Writ petitioner/ appellant stands dismissed in limini.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal, as come to the fore from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that as per the
petitioner/ appellant, the respondent No.4 is a Government employee in the Rural Development Department, Jammu, but has undertaken another
occupation of photography in the name and style M/s Regal Photo Flash Studio, Moti Bazar, Jammu. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 suppressed
this fact from the respondent No.1, where the respondent No.4 is an employee and that on 30th of May, 2016, when the respondent No.4 was in
service, he had opened a bank account with the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, Branch Talab Tiloo, Jammu in the name of the said photography
shop showing himself as proprietor of the said shop. It is contended that the respondent No. 4 cannot take another business or profession while being
in active service of Government, which is against law, thereby committing gross violation of the provisions of service rules and regulations. It was
averred by the Writ petitioner/ appellant that the respondent No.4, since the very inception of his service, is never regular and most of the time
remains absent from his duties owing to the fact that he operates and runs his photography shop. The Writ petitioner/ appellant, accordingly, claims to
have filed an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, thereby seeking attendance record of the respondent No.4 from the
office of Assistant Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Udhampur, however, the concerned authorities, despite lapse of the statutory
period, failed to provide the requisite information about the attendance of the respondent No.4, which, prima facie, substantiates the fact that the
respondent No.4 has actually not been attending the office and thus holding the post of BDO, Sewna, illegally. The Writ petitioner/ appellant avers that
he brought to the notice of the respondents 1 & 2 the misconduct of the respondent No.4 and highlighted the negligence on the part of respondent
No.4 before the authorities by medium of a complaint, requesting initiation of action against respondent No.4, but despite that, the respondents 1 & 2
did not take any action against private respondent No.4 and thus, allowed the illegality to perpetuate. The official respondents having thus, failed to
discharge their obligatory duty in accordance with law while dealing with the misconduct and commission of gross violation of the service rules by
private respondent No.4, the Writ petitioner/ appellant filed the aforesaid Writ petition seeking a direction upon the official respondents to conduct an
enquiry and take necessary action against the respondent No.4 and decide the representation filed by the Writ petitioner/ appellant. The learned Single,
in terms of the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition filed by the Writ petitioner/ appellant.
Learned counsel for the Writ petitioner/ appellant submits that the learned Writ Court has not appreciated the controversy involved in the case in
its true and correct perspective inasmuch as it has not considered the fact that the respondent No.4 committed violation of service rules by running a
business under his name despite being in active Government service.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, coupled with a perusal of the pleadings on record, we are of the view that the impugned
judgment, which has been assailed before us, has been passed by the learned Single Judge in strict accordance with the law governing the subject.
The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the petition is grossly misconceived as the Writ petitioner/ appellant was having no locus standi to
maintain the same.
It is well settled legal position that a person shall have no locus standi to file a Writ petition if he/ she is not personally affected by the impugned
action or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or
his/ her acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is based on the
existence of a right in favour of the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the Writ petitioner, appellant has been unable to point out
his locus standi to maintain the Writ petition. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by
the learned Single judge as would warrant interference from this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and shall stand dismissed as such, alongwith the
connected CM.