HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE) WP(C ) No. 1604/2023 Shabir Ahmad Mir son of Saifuddin Mir resident of Lone Hari Tehsil and District Kupwara ..... appellant (s) Through :- Mr. H.A.Wani Advocate. V/s .....Respondent(s) 1 UT of J&K through Chief Secretary to Government. 2. UT of J&K through Commissioner Secretary to Government, GAD 3. Commissioner Secretary to Government Finance Department. 4. Commissioner Secretary to Government Information Technology Department. 5. Director General Accounts and Treasuries Finance Department. & ors. Through :-Mr. A.R.Malik Sr. AAG. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER Sanjeev Kumar, J 1 This petition, filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order and judgment dated 20.03.2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench [‘the Tribunal’], in TA No. 42/2022, whereby the Tribunal has disposed of the TA by directing as under: “At the time of hearing of the present T.A., learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will be satisfied if he is allowed to make a comprehensive representation and Sr. No. 16 2 direction is given by this Tribunal to the respondents to dispose of the same within a time frame manner. After hearing the limited request of the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner shall make a comprehensive representation bringing details about his eligibility and the respondents to consider the same within six weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and a copy of the said decision be provided to the petitioner. Accordingly, T.A. is disposed of with above directions. No costs”. 2 The impugned order, which on the face of it is an order passed with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is challenged on the ground that Mr. T.A.Lone Advocate, who was representing the petitioner before the Tribunal, never gave consent as recorded in the order. It is submitted by Mr. H.A. Wani learned counsel that, as a matter of fact, the matter, after hearing, was reserved for judgment and was later decided on 20.03.2023. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, disputes the consent recorded in para No.3 of the judgment impugned before us. 3 Ordinarily, and as a matter of prudence, what is recorded in an order by a Court or Tribunal is believed to be true. Whatever has transpired between the Tribunal and learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during hearing of the matter before the Tribunal is something which is purely within the knowledge of the Tribunal. In the absence of any affidavit filed by Mr. T.A.Lone learned counsel, who was representing the petitioner, we cannot arrive at any conclusion. 4 In the given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the issue raised by the petitioner, in particular with reference to the consent of Mr. T.A.Lone learned counsel as recorded in para No.3 of the impugned judgment is the one which can be sorted out only by way of a review petition before the Tribunal. This is so, because the Tribunal would be in a 3 better position to appreciate the grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition. 5 This petition is held not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it shall remain open to the petitioner to file a review petition before the Tribunal in accordance with law. Needless to say that the time which the petitioner has spent before this Court shall be eschewed from the limitation period prescribed for filing the review petition. (PUNEET GUPTA) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE Jammu 18.02.2025. Sanjeev 4