Serial No. 77 Regular cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … WP (C) No. 2161/2024 Taiba Alam ……...Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bilal Khan, Advocate. Versus Vice chancellor University of Kashmir and Ors. ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faisal Qadiri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sikander Hyaat Khan, Advocate for R- 1 to 5 Mr. I. Sofi, Advocate for R- No. 7 CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 08.04.2025 1. By the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has sought as many as five reliefs in the form of a writs of mandamus to the effect that respondents 1 and 2 be directed to allow the petitioner to stay in the girls hostel by providing proper security cover; to direct respondents 2 to 6 to provide compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- for the inhuman treatment meted out to her by them; to direct respondents 4 to 6 to explain their position as to how they entered into and threw the petitioner out from the girls hostel; to direct respondent No. 1 to conduct departmental enquiry against respondents 3 to 6 for throwing the petitioner out of the girls hostel under the influence of respondent No. 7; to direct respondent No. 1 to conduct a separate enquiry against respondent No. 7 through Commandant 195 BN CRPF at Electricity Board, Sub-division P. O. Barsoor, Dentewada, Chattisgarh (India). Sakeena Molvi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.04.2025 14:46 2. The case of the petitioner as projected through the instant petition is precisely that she is pursuing her Ph. D in Hindi discipline in the University of Kashmir and in such capacity is putting up at girls hostel of the said University. The petitioner alleges that she has been thrown out of the girls hostel by respondents 4 to 6 forcibly under the influence of respondent No. 7 who happens to be her husband. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner and respondent No. 7 have had a marital discourse which led to filing of petitions which are pending adjudication before different courts of law. The eviction of the petitioner from the girls hostel supra is alleged to be an outcome of such discourse undertaken by the respondents 4 to 6 at the asking of respondent No. 7. In the circumstances, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the afore stated prayers. 3. Upon notice the respondents appeared and filed their reply resisting the claim of the petitioner. 4. The stand of the official respondents as also the private respondent No. 7 is on similar lines. It is stated in the reply that the petitioner had filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act before the competent court of law besides filing a separate petition before the Family Court Srinagar. It is further stated in the reply that the parties to the dispute entered into a compromise which was not adhered to by the petitioner constraining the respondent No. 7, her husband, to file an execution petition in which notices were issued to the petitioner, however, the petitioner evaded her appearance before the court constraining the court below to issue warrants under Order 21 Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further stated Sakeena Molvi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.04.2025 14:46 in the reply that the action as alleged by the petitioner has purportedly been taken pursuant to issuance of such warrants. The respondent No. 7 has annexed with the petition the copy of judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Srinagar, pursuant to and in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties copy whereof is also annexed with the reply. 5. The reply of the respondent 1 to 5, as stated hereinbefore, is more or less on the same lines with an only addition of defense projected in respect of the University Officers including the Warden of girls hostel that the action taken by the authorities is within the four corners of law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds taken in the instant petition submitted that the petitioner is entitled to education and the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 7 should not have formed a ground for the university authorities to intervene and throw the petitioner out of the girls hostel. 8. On the other hand Mr. S. F. Qadri, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the University of Kashmir along with Mr Sikander Hyaat Khan, submits that true it is that the right to education is a fundamental right and petitioner is not discriminated on such count, however, the university at the same time is obliged in law to take care of the interests of the other students studying therein including the other students who were putting up at the girls hostel along with Sakeena Molvi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.04.2025 14:46 petitioner. The learned Sr. Counsel submits that the police intervention in the marital discourse of the petitioner and their frequent visits in that behalf had necessitated the university authorities to take preemptive measures so that the whole atmosphere of the girls hostel is not vitiated. 9. The learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that the Chief Proctor- Respondent No. 4, had issued a letter dated 29.12.2023 against the respondent No. 7 warning him of entering into the university campus without prior permission of the Chief Proctor which indicates and suggests very sufficiently that the university authorities were not against the petitioner but were only interested to preserve the sanctity and the overall atmosphere of the University campus including that of the girls hostel housed therein. 10. Mr. I. Sofi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in its present form as the petitioner has already launched prosecution against respondent No. 7 before every forum as was available to her under law and this court cannot in its writ jurisdiction enter into the merits of the controversy. 11. Considered the submissions made. 12. The petitioner, on her own showing, has stated that there is a matrimonial dispute existing between her and her husband and the alleged action of eviction is an outcome of such dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner though vehemently submitted that the petitioner is entitled to pursue her education being her right, has failed to justify as to how such right has been curtailed or infringed Sakeena Molvi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.04.2025 14:46 by the respondents-university authorities. It has emphatically been pleaded and proved on the basis of documents on record that the petitioner had failed to appear before the court below, before whom the dispute had reached on the application of petitioner itself, which subsequently led to issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioner and in execution whereof, the police concerned has reached the accommodation allotted to the petitioner in the girls hostel of the university campus. 13. The admitted position of the case, therefore, is that the petitioner is having a matrimonial dispute with her husband i.e. respondent No. 7 and the action, as challenged in the instant petition, is an offshoot of such dispute only. Since the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 7 are having the litigation pending before the competent Courts of law wherein certain orders have been passed and in pursuance whereof the official respondents, in the instant petition, have taken some administrative measures as reflected hereinbefore, therefore, the instant petition is not the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner. The scope of the dispute has certainly widened but the fact remains that the size and area of a dispute may enlarge but the cause lies with the roots and in this case the roots are deeply connected with the matrimonial discord of the petitioner and respondent no. 7. 14. The reference made to the Judgment of Supreme Court delivered in case titled Ms. Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported as 1992 (3) SCC 666, to indicate that the right to education Sakeena Molvi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.04.2025 14:46 is a very precious right does not appear to be of any help to the learned counsel for the petitioner as no action has been taken by the university authorities that may portray that the petitioner’s education has been compromised or affected in any way. On the contrary there is a communication on record, as taken note of in the preceding paragraphs, issued by the Chief Proctor, that goes on to show that the authorities have been taking certain administrative measures to facilitate a smooth and hassle free education to the petitioner, as the respondent No. 7, by such communication, has been warned to stay off the campus of University so that no unwanted disturbance is caused. 15. The writ petition filed by the petitioner, thus, does not disclose any cause much less a reasonable cause to convince this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction in the matter as the actions challenged in the instant petition appear to be an outcome of the already pending litigation before the Courts below. Any grievance in respect of the dispute can be effectively dealt with by the Courts below. 16. In view of what has been said hereinbefore, the writ petition is found to be without merit therefore, dismissed along with connected CMs. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Srinagar 08.04.2025 Sakeena, PS Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No. Sakeena Molvi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.04.2025 14:46