S. No. 89 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M)/372/2025 SYED NOOR SHAH SUMO STAND …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M.I. Dar, Advocate with Mr. Ruaani Ahmad Baba, Advocate Vs. BUS AND SUMO STAND TRANSPORT WORKERS QAZIGUND ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Rizwan ul Zaman, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 22.12.2025 1. The order passed by the Trial Court on an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has been challenged by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While passing the impugned order, the Trial Court has observed as under:- “that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction, the balance of convenience lies in his favour, and that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury in the event interim protection is not granted.” 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations so recorded, the Trial Court has temporarily restrained the respondents/petitioners from causing any interference with the user rights of the applicant to ply Sumo/Tavera from Bus Stand, Qazigund to Anantnag and vice-versa, till disposal of the suit. In paragraph 14 of the impugned order, the Trial Court has made the following observations:- “Before parting away this Court wants to disucss the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in has disposed a LPA No. 349/2024 filed by applicant against non- applicant and other respondents stating in their order that “appeal, is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to determine the dispute as it exists between the appellants and the private respondents with regard to use of National Bus Stand, Qazigund Anantnag for parking of Sumo and Taxis, as is claimed by both the sides. The competent authority shall hear the appellants as well as the respondents as also the other stakeholders and shall pass formal orders, settling the dispute once for all”. It is pertinent to mention here that this order shall not confer any right to applicant against competent authorities to decide the right of the applicant to ply sumo and taxis from Bus Stand Qazigund.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court while passing the impugned order granting interim injunction, has exceeded its jurisdiction, inasmuch as, by virtue of the orders passed by this Court, the dispute inter se between the parties was directed to be decided by the statutory competent authority. It is contended that the impugned order is in direct conflict with the orders passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2494/2022 and LPA No. 349/2024 and, therefore, is bad in law and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has primarily raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, submitting that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that, instead of availing the said remedy, he has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 which would not be available to him since he has an efficacious remedy available. 5. It is observed that Order 43 of CPC provides for an appeal against an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. Therefore, such an order can thus be challenged before the competent Court by way of appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is clarified that such jurisdiction is to be exercised in cases where no alternate remedy by way of an appeal is available, or where it is necessary in the ends of justice to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 7. The Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, has culled out following principles with regard to exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:- (a) A petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of superintendence on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (b) High Courts cannot, at the drop of hat, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the cases, where an alternative remedy would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court. (c) While laying down the principle, on the basis of which power of superintendence, embodied, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is exercised by the High court, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has pointed out. in Waryam Singh vs Amarnath (AIR 1954 SC 215), that a High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence, can interfere with an order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it within the bounds of their authority". This power of superintendence cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. (d) Merely, therefore, the fact that an order is incorrect, the High Court may not exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the power of superintendence vested in a High Court, under Article of the Constitution of India, can be invoked to remove a patent perversity in an order of the tribunal or court subordinate to the High Court or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been Routed. (e) In exercise of its power of superintendence, High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it is a possible view. In another words, the supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 127 of the Constitution of India, has to be very sparingly exercised. (f) The main object of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory (g) The power of interfere, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheels of justice do not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 8. It is seen that the Trial Court while passing the impugned order, noted its own observations and the orders passed by this Court in the WP(C) and LPA referred above. It is further observed that the Transport Authority, which is required to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, has yet to decide the same. 9. Learned Government Advocate Mr. Waseem Gul, who was directed to seek instructions, has reported that the dispute has not been resolved so far. Mr. Waseem Gul, after seeking instructions from the Transport Department, has informed the Court that the directions passed by the Division Bench in terms of order dated 26.05.2025 have not been complied with. 10. The Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, had directed that the petitioners herein shall be temporarily restrained from interfering with the applicant’s right to ply Sumo/Tavera from Bus Stand, Qazigund to Anantnag and vice versa till the final disposal of the petition. It was, however, made clear in para 14 of the order that the said direction shall not confer any right upon the applicant against the competent authorities to decide the right of the applicant to ply Sumo/Tavera and collect taxes from Bus Stand, Qazigund. 11. In view of the fact that the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal before the appropriate Forum, the same ought to have been availed. 12. Having regard to what has been stated above, I do not find any ground in this petition warranting interference in the order impugned passed by the Trial Court, while exercising powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to challenge the impugned order before the competent Forum, however, it is made clear that the time spent before this Court shall stand excluded from the period of limitation for filing such appeal before the appropriate Forum. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 22.12.2025 Shabroz