HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA no. 182/2024 in WP(C) No. 971/2024 Reserved on: 08.10.2025 Pronounced on: 24.12.2025 Uploaded on: 24.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Mohammad Akram Bhat …..Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Q. R. Shamus, Advocate Vs. Union of India and others ....Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Farhat Reyaz, Adv. vice Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE J U D G M E N T PER: SINDHU SHARMA-J 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 10.05.2024, whereby WP(C) No. 971/2024, has been dismissed. The appellant is seeking a direction for setting aside the said order. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant in this appeal are that the appellant participated for Retail Outlet dealership in open merit category pursuant to advertisement Notice dated 24.11.2018, at Batpora Hazratbal on Batpora, Shalimar Road within 1 KM of the Degree College, District Srinagar. A draw of lots was held on 06.02.2019 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. The respondents thereafter, vide email dated 07.02.2019, informed the appellant that he had been selected for the said dealership, subject to furnishing the 2 LPA no. 182/2024 in WP(C) No. 971/2024 required affidavits and details of the land proposed to be offered for setting up the retail outlet. 3. The contention of the appellant is that after receipt of email, he had completed all the formalities and thereafter, deposited the security amount online, however, the respondents neither issued letter of intent nor sent any communication to the appellant with regard to his application. It was only on enquiry from the Divisional Office; he was informed that his application has been rejected as he failed to offer a suitable land to the respondents. Accordingly, he approached learned Writ Court for quashing communication dated 28.12.2022, and sought a direction to the respondents to complete the process of selection for retail outlet dealership in accordance with the Advertisement Notice and issuance of letter of intent in his favour. 4. Learned writ Court, vide impugned order dated 10.05.2024, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there are disputed questions of fact raised in the petition and same could not be appropriately adjudicated upon in the writ petition. 5. The appellant is aggrieved of the impugned judgment and has challenged the same on the ground that the learned Writ Court had dismissed his petition only on the ground that complicated disputed questions of fact has arisen in the petition, which can only be adjudicated by a civil court. It is averred that the learned Writ Court has failed to consider the fact that the appellant was selected for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership and he had placed on record the receipt of submitting the documents and the delay was on the part of 3 LPA no. 182/2024 in WP(C) No. 971/2024 the respondents. The selection for it had neither been concluded nor any fresh advertisement was issued, therefore, the respondents could have been asked to state reasons for denial of the Retail Outlet Dealership to the appellant. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned writ Court had heard and dismissed the case in limine, the case ought not to have been dismissed on preliminary hearing alone, if it raises any triable issues. 6. The respondents had issued advertisement Notice on 24.11.2018, pursuant to which the appellant applied for award of Retail Outlet dealership at Batpora Hazratbal in Batpora Shalimar road within 01 KM of Degree College, Srinagar under open category advertised on 25.11.2018. Vide communication dated 25.02.2019, it appears that the appellant was successful in the said advertisement and the respondents accordingly, informed him to submit the specified documents within a period of 10 days for processing his application for award of Retail outlet dealership in the above location. It was also mentioned in the same communication that in case the appellant failed to submit the documents within the stipulated time, the candidature of the appellant was liable for rejection without any further notice. Thereafter, the respondents again vide their communication dated 28.12.2022, requested the appellant to offer a suitable land for the advertised location in accordance with the criteria and details offered on the online portal. It was again stated that in case the appellant failed to update the land details on the web portal by 27.03.2023, his application for the same was liable to be rejected. 4 LPA no. 182/2024 in WP(C) No. 971/2024 7. This communication dated 28.12.2022 was assailed before the learned Writ Court after more than one year and three months. 8. The communication dated 28.12.2022 reveals that the appellant had failed to offer suitable land in the advertised location/stretch for meeting all the prescribed criteria and had also failed to submit the requisite details and documents, including the land documents and also the consent letter. The failure to fulfill the terms and conditions regarding offer of land resulted in rejection of his candidature. 9. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, regarding rejection of the petition, as it involves disputed questions of fact, for the reason that the issue whether the appellant had submitted the documents or was able to offer suitable land in the advertised location and also whether the land so offered was in conformity with the ownership details and matched the category mentioned in the consent letter, and whether the documents were in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the advertisement notice for the retail outlet, are all disputed questions of fact. Such issues can only be considered after thorough examination and can be adjudicated only by the civil Court alone. 10. In the present case, the relief sought by the appellant is contingent upon resolution of these disputed questions of fact and the appellant has failed to adduce anything to substantiate his claim, as such, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Union of India and others vs. M/s Puna Hinda’, (2021) 10 SCC 690, has held as under: 5 LPA no. 182/2024 in WP(C) No. 971/2024 “24. Therefore, the dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact. Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallized. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptance of Joint Survey Report by the competent authority, no right would accrue to the writ petitioner only because measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time. Maybe, the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e., arbitration and not by the Writ Court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads.” 12. The appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed in case titled Gunwant Kour and Ors vs. Municipal Committed Bathinda, AIR 1970 Sc 802, wherein in Para 14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “… Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, High Court is of the view that the petition be frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made, dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.” 6 LPA no. 182/2024 in WP(C) No. 971/2024 13. 182/2024 in WP(C) No. 971/2024 13. The aforesaid judgment itself is an answer to the contentions raised by the appellant, as the dispute raised is of such nature that it would not be appropriate to adjudicate the same in the writ jurisdiction, unless issues are framed, evidence lead and findings returned by the civil Court. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE Srinagar: 24.12.2025 Bir* Whether approved for reporting : Yes