Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8445 (JK)

GHULAM NABI BHAT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (EXTERNAL AFFAIRS)

LPA/202/2024 · 2025-04-21

Mohd Yousuf Wani, Sanjeev Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Serial No. 18 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No. 202/2024 Ghulam Nabi Bhat …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Vs. Union of India and others ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI with Ms Rehana Qayoom, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Ms Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE ORDE R 21.04.2025 1. This is an appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent filed by the appellant against an order and judgment dated 19th July, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge [“the Writ Court”] in WP (C) No. 2882/2023 titled “Ghulam Nabi Bhat Vs. Union of India & Ors.”, whereby the Writ Court has dismissed the petition as not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the statutory appellate authority. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order (supra) and has challenged the same, primarily, on the ground that the order dated 12th April, 2024, passed by the Regional Passport Officer, rejecting the application of the appellant for grant of passport was taken note of by the Writ Court during the course of hearing in open court and, therefore, the appellant had no opportunity either to amend the writ petition or to file a fresh petition to throw challenge to the aforesaid order. 3. It is argued by Mr. Nisar Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that since the order dated 12th April, 2024, is, on the face of it, in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 23.04.2025 even the writ petition would be maintainable notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the interim record, we are of the considered opinion that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant needs to be permitted to withdraw WP (C) No. 2882/2023, with liberty to challenge the order dated 12th April, 2024, by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 5. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 2882/2023 shall stand withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. 6. Disposed of. (MOHD YOUSUF WANI) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 21.04.2025 “ARIF” Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 23.04.2025