Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 21 - August 27, 2023

Nominal Index :

IRSHAD AHMAD QURESHI & ANR Vs. STATE OF J&K & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 223

Gul Mohammad and Ors Vs State of J&K and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 224

Noor Illahi Fakhtoo vs UT of J&K and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 225

Surjeet Singh Vs Sheikh Behzad Khalid & others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 226

Nazir Ahmad Ganie and Another Vs Mohammad Amin Ganie 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 227

Haseena Akhter Vs. Union Territory of J&K & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 228

Mian Khan and Others Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 229

Mohammad Amin Wani vs. UT Of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 230

Gupta Modern Breweries Vs State of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 231

Tawqeer Bashir Magray Vs. Union Territory of J&K & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 232

M/S CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD. Vs PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 233

Judgments/Orders:

Simultaneous Prosecution Under PMLA, UAPA Not Double Jeopardy: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: IRSHAD AHMAD QURESHI & ANR Vs. STATE OF J&K & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 223

Emphasizing that the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is distinct and independent from offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAP Act), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that simultaneous prosecution under both laws does not amount to double jeopardy.

J&K Land Acquisition Act | Deputy Commissioner Not Authorized To Make Section 6 Declarations On 'Public Purpose': High Court

Case Title: Gul Mohammad and Ors Vs State of J&K and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 224

Shedding light on crucial aspects of the land acquisition process under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of a particular district has not been delegated with the power to make a declaration under Section 6 of the Act which is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for public purpose.

"Useless Formality Theory": J&K High Court Says Post-Decisional Hearing Can Remove Procedural Deficiency Of Pre-Decisional Hearing

Case Title: Noor Illahi Fakhtoo vs UT of J&K and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 225

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court observed that the "Useless Formality Theory" would be relevant in cases where a party's case lacks substance or chances of success are slim, and applying natural justice principles would not change the outcome.

The Bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal Wani clarified that even in such cases, taking recourse to a post-decisional hearing can fix procedural flaws and ensure fairness.

Mistake Of Fact Or Law Not Ground To Entertain Article 227 Petition Unless There Is Manifest Miscarriage Of Justice: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Surjeet Singh Vs Sheikh Behzad Khalid & others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 226

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court underscored that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked merely on the basis of personal dissatisfaction with court orders.

Justice Puneet Gupta stressed that orders cannot be set aside without substantial grounds, and even errors of fact or law may not warrant interference unless they result in a clear miscarriage of justice.

Appellant Should Also Challenge Decree Not Just Judgment U/S 96 CPC: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Nazir Ahmad Ganie and Another Vs Mohammad Amin Ganie

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 227

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court highlighted that an appeal must challenge the decree passed by the original court, not just the judgment as mandated by Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Justice Puneet Gupta emphasised that the responsibility to challenge the decree rested with the appellants and that their failure to do so within the stipulated time period could not be excused.

Engaged In Anti-National Activities Since Tender Age: J&K High Court Upholds Detention Of Alleged Dukhtaran-e-Milat Operative

Case Title: Haseena Akhter Vs. Union Territory of J&K & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 228

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld a preventive detention order issued against Haseena Akhter who is allegedly associated with the banned outfit Dukhtaran-e-Milat.

Justice M.A Chowdhary upheld the detention order upon finding that the detenu was involved in anti-national activities from a young age and her activities posed a potential threat to the security of the State, justifying her detention under the Public Safety Act.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Imposes 1 Lakh Penalty On State For Bypassing Land Acquisition Procedures

Case Title: Mian Khan and Others Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 229

Coming down heavily against the state administration for forcibly acquiring land without due process and compensation, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the state for violating the constitutional right to property.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal emphasised that property rights are a cornerstone of a democratic society governed by the rule of law and that the state cannot arrogate itself power beyond the boundaries set by the Constitution.

Court Can Review Detention Orders Despite Detaining Authority's Subjective Satisfaction: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Amin Wani vs. UT Of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 230

While acknowledging the principle of not ordinarily interfering with the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that this principle does not preclude the court from examining the material that forms the basis of detention.

Justice Puneet Gupta found that while the detention order need not be preceded by a police case, the vague allegations against the petitioner were not supported by sufficient evidence and concluded that the detention order did not meet the requisite legal standards.

J&K Distillery Rules | State Can't Levy Excise Duty On Rectified Spirit Unfit For Human Consumption: High Court

Case Title: Gupta Modern Breweries Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 231

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that the State does not possess the requisite legislative competence to impose Excise Duty on rectified spirit not suitable for human consumption as per Rules 107 and 108 of the Jammu & Kashmir Distillery Rules.

Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi interpreted the Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act to allow Excise Duty only on spirits that had passed certain production and distillation stages and were fit for human consumption.

Drug Abuse An Epidemic Among Youth: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Calls For Collective Action

Case Title: Tawqeer Bashir Magray Vs. Union Territory of J&K & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 232

Upholding the detention order of a petitioner found engaged in illicit drug trafficking, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court emphasised the need for joint efforts from the concerned agencies and community leaders to combat the growing menace of drug abuse, particularly among the youth.

Justice M A Chowdhary observed,

“The epidemic of drug abuse in younger generation has assumed alarming dimensions in the country. Prevention of drug abuse among adolescents requires awareness about its destructive results. To overcome the menace of drug abuse, concerned agencies hand-in-hand with the community heads are required to come forward and deal with this menace with iron hand to save the society more particularly the young generation and families.”

Termination Order Cannot Be Challenged U/S 33C(2) Of Industrial Disputes Act: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: M/S CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD. Vs PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 233

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the validity of a dismissal order cannot be addressed within the confines of a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the issue relating to validity of a dismissal order can by no stretch of imagination be termed as incidental to the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act.

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed

“…Unless there is a reference of a dispute regarding validity of a dismissal order before the Labour Court, it cannot adjudicate upon the said issue in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The issue relating to validity of a dismissal order can by no stretch of imagination be termed as incidental to the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act.”