Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup November 27 - December 3, 2023

Nazir Ahmad Najar Vs UOI 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 300

Hakeem Muzafar Khaliq Vs Inspector General, Crime Branch, Srinagar 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 301

Building Operation Controlling Authority Vs Vikas Gupta 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 302

Members of Saini Community Th. Suksham Singh Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 303

Mehmooda Vs State of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 304

Judgments/Orders:

'Seema Suraksha Bal' A Central Force With Pan India Presence, Its Orders Subject To Challenge Across All High Courts: J&K High Court

Case Title: Nazir Ahmad Najar Vs UOI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 300

The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court upon quashing the removal order of a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) Constable observed that the Seema Suraksha Bal (SSB), is a force of the Union of India with a pan-India presence, making orders passed by it appealable before any of the High Courts in the country.

The court added,

“Moreover, the Paramilitary Force SSB who had passed the order has a pan India presence being a Force of the Union of India, as such, the same is subject to the jurisdiction of every High Court in India including this High Court”.

J&K Reservation Act 2004 | Social Caste Certificate Can Only Be Cancelled By Deputy Or Divisional Commissioner: High Court

Case Title: Hakeem Muzafar Khaliq Vs Inspector General, Crime Branch, Srinagar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 301

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an order cancelling the Other Social Caste (OSC) Certificate of the petitioner while observing that the Additional Deputy Commissioner lacked the authority to cancel such certificates.

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal has clarified that if any person is aggrieved by the issuance of an OSC certificate by the competent authority under section 16 of the Reservation Act, only the Deputy Commissioner or Divisional Commissioner can entertain an appeal and cancel the same if issued in violation of rules.

BOCA Act | S.15 Confers Finality To Tribunal Orders, Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction Directly Conflicts With The Same: J&K High Court

Case Title: Building Operation Controlling Authority Vs Vikas Gupta

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 302

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, emphasizing that the finality of orders under Section 15 of the Building Operations Controlling Authority (BOCA) Act, 1988, would conflict with the imposition of extraordinary jurisdiction by the Court.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that since finality had been attached to an order made by an Authority or an appellate officer appointed by the Government for hearing appeal(s) under section 13 of the Act of 1988, filing of a petition while invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction by the petitioners runs in direct conflict with section 15 of the Act of 1988.

High Court Restrains J&K Administration From Issuing Caste Certificates To Saini Community

Case Title: Members of Saini Community Th. Suksham Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 303

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh prohibited the Union Territory Administration from granting caste certificates to individuals belonging to the Saini Community until the government definitively establishes their status as a socially disadvantaged and underprivileged group.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed these directions while hearing a plea moved by the members of the Saini community assailing their inclusion as a weak and underprivileged (social caste) by way of a Government order dated October 19, 2022.

Judgment In Rem Extends Benefits To All Similarly Situated Employees, Denying Them Violates Articles 14 & 16: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mehmooda Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 304

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that when a set of employees is given a particular relief by a Court of law, all identically situated persons would need to be treated alike by extending the said benefits to them as well.

The court further clarified that the extension of such benefits would be irrespective of whether they approached the court during their active service or not.