Sr. No. 08 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA 111/2023 in[OWP 50/2012] CM(3628/2023) c/w CCP(D) 33/2023 MUSHTAQ AHMAD BHAT …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER 04.03.2025 LPA No. 111/2023 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is aggrieved by the order dated 09-05-2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition bearing OWP No. 50/2012. 2. Briefly stated, the case is as follows: 3. The appellant herein, who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, is undisputedly a commission agent of the Animal Husbandry Department. 4. Shop No. 6 situated at Goni Khan, Amira kadal, Srinagar belongs to Srinagar Development Authority. It was given on lease to the Animal Husbandry Department. The appellant herein, being the commission agent of the Animal Husbandry Department was occupying Shop No. 6 and selling the products of Animal Husbandry Department as the agent. The Animal Husbandry Department evicted the appellant from the said premises against which the appellant preferred a Civil Suit for Permanent Injunction where the learned court below held in his favor and passed a decree against Animal Husbandry Department that, in the event the appellant had to be evicted from the premises, the procedure established by law shall be followed, and only thereafter could he be evicted. Undisputedly, the Srinagar Development Authority was not a defendant in the aforementioned civil suit. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in order to achieve indirectly what the Animal Husbandry Department could not achieve directly, they got the Srinagar Development Authority to evict the appellant as a trespasser. The said action on behalf of the Srinagar Development Authority is challenged as illegal as no notice under the Public Premises Act was ever served upon the appellant. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was no necessity to serve any notice upon the appellant. In order to clarify his stand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the privity of contract was between the Srinagar Development Authority as the landlord and the Animal Husbandry Department as the lessee. The appellant herein was only occupying the said premises on behalf of the Animal Husbandry Department as its agent and that there was no privity of contract between Srinagar Development Authority and the appellant herein and, therefore, the appellant was not a person aggrieved as no cause of action arose in his favour in order to sustain a petition under Article 226. 7. We are in agreement with the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Before a petition under Article 226 can be filed and sustained, the appellant must show that he is a person aggrieved whose legal or constitutional right has been infringed by the act of State and secondly, there is no equally efficacious alternate remedy available. 9. Here in this particular case, undoubtedly, there was no privity of contract between the Srinagar Development Authority and the appellant herein. The question of issuing a notice under the Public Premises Act would only arise if the lessee, which is the Animal Husbandry Department, had approached the court as an aggrieved person, which is not the case in this appeal. 10. Therefore, this court does not find any perversity in the order dated 09-05-2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. CCP(D) No. 33/2023 11. In view of the order passed in LPA No. 111/2023, nothing survives in this petition. The same is dismissed. (PUNEET GUPTA) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 04.03.2025 Aamir Amir Rashid Sofi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 06.03.2025 11:38