BEFORE THE COURT OF LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, JAMMU.

Amarjit Singh S/O: Mushoor Singh R/O: H. No. 408-C, Sainik Colony,
Jammu.
(Petitioner)

V/S

Inderjit Kour D/O: Sumpuram Singh W/O: Amarjit Singh R/O: Opposite
Gurudwara Road, Gadi Garh, Jammu.

(Respondent)

IN THE MATTER OF: Petition under section 25 of Guardian and

Wards Act of 1977 for custody of minor baby

Manshin Kour D/O: Amarjit Singh, to the

petitioner.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR,

The petitioner most respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the respondent is legally wedded wife of petitioner as the

marriage between the parties was solemnized on 04-11-2007 at

Jammu and out of the wedlock minor baby Manshin Kour was

born on 29-09-2008 at Jammu. Copy of the birth certificate is

enclosed herewith marked as Annexure: A.

2. That respondent was putting up with petitioner peacefully but of

all a sudden she started quarrelling with the petitioner and the

parents of petitioner on lame excuse. It is further submitted that

respondent without any reasonable justification left the

matrimonial fold of the petitioner from September 2010.

 Petitioner and his family members have repeatedly approached

the respondent and her parents for sharing the matrimonial

relationship but for one reason or the other respondent has not

agreed to return back to the petitioner’s house.

3. That respondent was conveying to the petitioner that she would

be ready to accompany him if they have reside separately from

the parents of the petitioner. Initially petitioner did not agree to

her suggestion but ultimately once found that she is adamant for

the aforesaid fact, petitioner thought coolly and conveyed the

same to his parents who requested petitioner that let the couple

put up separately otherwise it will destroy their entire family set

up. Petitioner accordingly conveyed the same thing to the

respondent and her parents but then they started laying another

condition that he has to leave the house and put up separately

on rented accommodation in the near vicinity of his in-laws. This

was not agreed by the petitioner and the dead lock started. The

Respondent in order to pressurize petitioner, filed petition under

section 488 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for the minor as well

as for herself and the proceedings are pending before the 2 nd

Additional Munsiff, Jammu wherein by way of interim

arrangement the Hon’ble Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.

1,000/- as interim maintenance to the minor daughter.

4. That in the petition filed by her before the 2 nd Additional Munsiff,

Jammu, it has been repeatedly averded that she is putting in a

 miserable condition and is not able to provide any facility to the

minor daughter as she herself is dependent upon the meager

income of her parents. It is further submitted that petitioner

being the natural guardian of minor petitioner Manshin Kour has

been removed from his custody by respondent without his

consent and without his permission. The petitioner being the

natural guardian of the minor baby is entitled to get the custody

of the minor baby as the future of minor baby is unsafe in the

hands of the respondent particularly on the education and health

sector. It is further submitted that the minor baby is to be

admitted in the school in the month of October 2011 as she will

cross three years of age in September 2011 and it is being

conveyed by the respondent to petitioner that she will admit her

in a school where the fee structure is not more than Rs. 20/- per

month. Petitioner was shocked to learnt that her minor baby

would get education in a school which is for the people living

below poverty line and petitioner apprehends that she would not

get good education in the said school and her future would,

therefore, be very very miserable.

5. That the petitioner was allowed to meet his daughter regularly

by the respondents but after filing the petition under section 488

Cr.P.C, they are not allowing the petitioner to meet her

daughter. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner being the

natural guardian of the minor daughter is supposed to care for

 her welfare particularly in education and health sectors and

keeping in view the condition of the respondent as averded by

her the minor baby will suffer on both counts.

6. That petitioner wants to provide all sort of comforts to the

respondent and the minor baby and also wants to provide the

minor baby the best education and is intending to admit her in a

reputed school of Jammu and is also interested in providing all

over facilities for maintaining her health but because of the

denial on the part of the respondent, petitioner is not being

allowed to provide such facilities to the minor baby. Whatever

will happen to the life of the petitioner and the respondent as the

respondent has taken a hard pasture without any right or

reason in order to satisfy her ego but petitioner would never

tolerated that the future of the minor baby is destroyed because

of the madness of the respondent.

7. That petitioner being the father of the minor baby is under social

obligation to provide all basic facilities to the minor daughter and

is also very much anxious and worried about the welfare of the

minor child in case the custody is allowed to remain in the hands

of the respondent. Under the Guardian and Wards Act the

welfare of the child is the paramount consideration which shall

weigh with the Hon’ble Court for allowing the application so that

minor daughter Manshin Kour is handed over to petitioner

without any further delay sothat petitioner as well as the grand-

 father and grand-mother of the minor would provide all love and

affection to her as they were provided the same before she was

removed by the respondent from the custody of the petitioner

without any right or reason. It is further submitted that the

Hon’ble Courts while considering such matters have taken care

of the fact that if there is dispute between the couple, the minors

should not suffer. Petitioner would sacrifice his life for the

welfare of the minor daughter and would not left any stone

unturned for shaping the future of the minor daughter Manshin

Kour.

An affidavit in support is enclosed herewith.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the

aforesaid submissions and the submissions to be made at the time of

hearing, the application in hand may kindly be allowed and the custody

of the minor daughter Manshin Kour may kindly be handed over to

petitioner so that the petitioner is allowed to shape the future of the

minor baby as the welfare of the minor in the custody of the respondent

is likely to affect her educational, social and health count also.

Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper

in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the

petitioner against the respondent.

PETITIONER
THROUGH COUNSEL
DATED: -08-2011.
(P. N. BHAT)
ADVOCATE
BEFORE THE COURT OF LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, JAMMU.

Amarjit Singh V/S Inderjit Kour

-(Petitioner)- -(Respondent)-

IN THE MATTER OF: Affidavit in support of accompanying Petition.

I, Amarjit Singh S/O: Mushoor Singh R/O: H. No. 408-C, Sainik

Colony, Jammu, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the contents of the accompanying Petition has been drawn

and drafted by my counsel as per my instructions.

2. That the contents of the accompanying Petition are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Jammu on this the ___ day of

August 2011 that the averments made
above are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
BEFORE THE COURT OF LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, JAMMU.

Amarjit Singh V/S Inderjit Kour

-(Petitioner)- -(Respondent)-

IN THE MATTER OF: CMP on behalf of petitioner for passing

appropriate order under section 122 of the Act

directing the respondent to handover the

custody of the minor person and also direct

her to produce her before the Court.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,

The petitioner most respectfully submits as under: -

1. That the averments made by the petitioner ion the main petition

under section 25 may kindly be treated as the averments of this

application also in order to avoid repetition of the facts.

2. That the respondent is not allowing petitioner to meet the minor

daughter and is not allowing the petitioner to provide her

clothing and other items like toys etc and is trying her best level

to restrain petitioner in meeting her.

3. That petitioner being the faithful father of the minor and very

much interested in her welfare wants to meet her. In these

circumstances justice demands that the respondent may kindly

be directed to allow petitioner to meet her or in the alternative

she may be directed to produce the minor before the court so

 that petitioner could meet her and at the same time interim

custody of the minor may kindly be handed over to the petitioner

being the natural guardian for some days in a week which would

be in the interest of justice.

An affidavit in support is enclosed herewith.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that keeping in view the

above said facts and circumstances, the application may kindly be allowed

and the respondent may kindly be directed to produce the minor before the

court enabling petitioner to meet her and at the same time interim custody

may also be handed over to petitioner for two days in a week in the first

instance.

Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper

in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the

petitioner against the respondent.

PETITIONER
THROUGH COUNSEL
DATED: -08-2011.
(P. N. BHAT)
ADVOCATE
BEFORE THE COURT OF LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, JAMMU.

Amarjit Singh V/S Inderjit Kour

-(Petitioner)- -(Respondent)-

IN THE MATTER OF: Affidavit in support of accompanying CMP.

I, Amarjit Singh S/O: Mushoor Singh R/O: H. No. 408-C, Sainik

Colony, Jammu, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the contents of the accompanying CMP has been drawn

and drafted by my counsel as per my instructions.

2. That the contents of the accompanying CMP are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Jammu on this the ___ day of

August 2011 that the averments made
above are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
BEFORE THE COURT OF LEARNED 3RD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF,
JAMMU.

Inderjit Kour & Anr V/S Amarjit Singh

(Petitioners) (Respondent)

Petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.

IN THE MATTER OF: Objections on behalf of the

respondent.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR,

The respondent most respectfully submits as under:-

1. That para No. 1 is admitted to be correct to the

extent of marriage. Rest is vehementally denied.

The respondent and his parents extended love and

affection to the petitioners and treated petitioner

No. 1 as their own daughter. It is pertinent to

mention here that the parents of the respondent are

very much depressed because of the absence of

petitioners particularly petitioner No. 2.

2. That para No. 2 is vehementally denied. Since

respondent is working in a private firm and remains

most of the times outside, therefore, the petitioner

No. 1 has the apprehension that the respondent is

having illicit relations. It is further submitted that

 the petitioner No. 1 has not quoted any instance of

any girl or has not mentioned the name of any girl

with whom the respondent is having illicit relations.

This is a bald allegation and can be leveled by any

wife who has deserted the company of her husband

without any right or reason and the same thing

happened with the petitioner No. 1 also.

3. That para No. 3 is vehementally denied. It is further

submitted that petitioner No. 1 has the problem of

remaining in joint family. From the date of her

marriage she started requesting the respondent

that let them put up separately from the parents

but the respondent resisted the suggestion of the

petitioner No. 1 as parents of the petitioner No. 1

having extended all love and affection to her but

without any reason the petitioner No. 1 is not

interested in loving with the parents of the

respondent. The question of misbehaviour by the

parents of the respondent as well as by the

respondent himself is poles apart from the factual

accuracy. The respondent has not himself

misbehaved with the petitioner No. 1 and her

 parents nor extended any threatening to them. The

petitioner No. 1 was requested by the respondent

and his parents that in case she wants to put up

separately let the couple put up separately and

thereafter the petitioner No. 1 raised the bogey that

she would not put up separately in the same house

but would prefer the rented accommodation which

was out rightly rejected by the respondent. It is

because of this fact the petitioner No. 1 has filed

the petition only to pressurize the respondent so

that he agrees to have the separate residence in a

rented accommodation. It is pertinent to mention

here that the respondent was also deprived of the

custody of the petitioner No. 2 and has been

forcibly and illegally taken by the petitioner No. 1.

The respondent has already filed a petition under

Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of the

minor child.

4. That para No. 4 is vehementally denied. Since the

marriage has taken place in the year 20907, the

question of beating by the respondent to the

petitioner No. 1 in 2000 is beyond imagination. One

 can imagine the truthness in the averment of the

petition.

5. That para No. 5 is admitted to the extent that

Gurudwara Prabandak Committee prevailed upon

the petitioner No. 1 and her parents after finding

fault on them and conveyed them that let the

couple remain peacefully in the matrimonial house.

The committee also found no fault with the

respondent and his parents.

6. That para No. 6 is also vehementally denied.

Respondent was providing all sorts of comforts to

her and the minor child when they reside with the

respondent. It is vehemently denied that the

respondent was not providing any pocket money to

the petitioner No. 1and never conveyed to her that

she should get the expenditure from her father. This

is a lame excuse being manipulated by the

petitioner No. 1 only to claim maintenance and only

to justify her desertion.

7. That para No. 7 is admitted to the extent that

respondent is working in Philips Electricals but is

 denied viz-a-viz the pay being drawn by the

respondent. The amount has been shown as the

incentives, TADA, hotel expenditure, to and fro

expenditure, rent etc. which is being spent by the

respondent while performing his duties in the field.

The respondent is supposed to move from one area

to another area and is supposed to remain in the

hotels and even such amount has been included in

the salary of the respondent when the fact remains

that the basic salary of the respondent is Rs.

16,309/-.

8. That para No. 8 is vehementally denied. It is further

submitted that petitioner No. 1 is a working lady

earning monthly income of Rs. ___________ and is

presently working as teacher in _________ B.Ed

College. It is because of her earning she does not

require any maintenance nor any maintenance can

be claimed by her by invoking provisions of Section

488 Cr.P.C. Viz-a-viz petitioner both i.e. petitioner

No. 1 and respondent are jointly liable to maintain

her and for that respondent is ready to pay the

maintenance. The respondent has to spend a lot of

 money upon the medical expenditure of the parents

as the parents of the respondent have no source of

income except the income of the respondent who

are totally dependent upon him.

9. That para No. 9 is admitted to the extent that

petitioner No. 1 is residing in her parental house but

she has no cause to desert the company of the

respondent and has deserted the company of the

respondent without any right or reason.

10. That the para No. 10 is admitted to be correct.

11. That para No. 11 is denied for want of knowledge

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in

view the above said submissions and the submissions to be

made at the time of hearing, the application in hand may

kindly be dismissed with costs.

RESPONDENT
THROUGH COUNSEL
Dated: -08-2011.
(P. N. BHAT)
ADVOCATE
BEFORE THE COURT OF LEARNED 3RD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF,
JAMMU.

Inderjit Kour & Anr V/S Amarjit Singh

(Petitioners) (Respondent)

IN THE MATTER OF: Objections to the application for grant

of interim maintenance.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR,

The respondent most respectfully submits as under:-

1. That para No. 1 is matter of record needs no reply.

2. That para No. 2 is denied as the petitioner No. 1 has

no cause to claim maintenance.

3. That para No. 3 is vehementally denied. The

petitioner No. 1 is working in ________ and having

monthly income of Rs. _______, therefore, she being

a earning lady not entitled to claim interim

maintenance.

4. That the grounds taken in the objections are also

adopted as the objections to this application for the

purpose of disposal. That para No. 5 is denied as

she has no right to claim interim maintenance

because she being an earning lady having sufficient

 sources of income though respondent is ready to

pay interim maintenance to petitioner No. 2.

An affidavit in support is enclosed herewith.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in

view the above said submissions and the submissions to be

made at the time of hearing, the application in hand may

kindly be dismissed with costs.

RESPONDENT
THROUGH COUNSEL
Dated: -08-2011.
(P. N. BHAT)
ADVOCATE

BEFORE THE COURT OF LEARNED 3RD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF,

JAMMU.

Inderjit Kour & Anr V/S Amarjit Singh

(Petitioners) (Respondent)

IN THE MATTER OF: Affidavit in support of accompanying

objections.

I, Amarjit Singh S/O: Mushoor Singh R/O: H. No. 408-C,

Sainik Colony, Jammu, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-
 1. That the contents of the accompanying objections
has been drawn and drafted by my counsel as per
my instructions.

2. That the contents of the accompanying objections

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Jammu on this the ___ day

of August 2011 that the averments made
above are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT

JAMMU.

Manjit Singh V/S State & Ors.

-(Petitioner)- -(Respondents)-

W R I T P E T I T I O N

I N D E X

S.No PARTICULARS DESCRIPTION PAGES

1. Writ petition Petition 1 to

2. Annexure: A Copy of compromise.

 3. Annexure: B Copy of order passed in the
suit.
4. Annexure: C Copy of impugned order.

5. Annexure: D Copies of prescription.

6. Affidavit

7. Vakalatnama

8. C.M.P

9. Affidavit

10. Spare copies

PETITIONER
THROUGH COUNSEL
Dated: -08-2011.
(P. N. BHAT)
ADVOCATE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT

JAMMU.

Manjit Singh V/S State & Ors.

-(Petitioner)- -(Respondents)-
BRIEF FACTS

That the petitioner has not migrated from Kashmir valley because of
present turmoil. It is further submitted that his wife Davinder Kour
alongwith her two kids migrated from Kashmir valley in the year 1990
against the wishes of the petitioner and for her migration her parental
members including her brother Daljit Singh instigated her to move to safer
place and helped her in having the Ration card for three souls. It is further
submitted that petitioner did not played any part in getting the ration card
of Davinder Kour nor produced himself at any point of time before the
authorities neither produced any documentary evidence to that effect. It is
because of this effort Davinder Kour has been made head of the family
and the ration card was issued for three souls. The strained relations
between the petitioner and his wife Davinder Kour and because of the
intervention of the relations and the members of the Gurudwara
Prabandak Committee, the dispute were settled in the year 2006 and it is
only in 2006, Davinder Kour returned back to the matrimonial fold of the
petitioner. Once she returned back to Kashmir valley in the year 2006, she
immediately surrendered the ration card and from the year 2006 did not
receive any relief from the authorities. Dispute arose between Davinder
Kour and her brother Daljit Singh over the ancestral property and Davinder
Kour filed a complaint before the respondent No. 2 at her back and
respondent No. 2 without providing an opportunity of being heard to her
and without any enquiry and without any show cause notice passed the
impugned order whereby the respondent No. 3 has been directed to affect
the recovery from the salary of the petitioner. The impugned order is being
challenged by the petitioner through the medium of this writ petition on
various grounds. Hence the petition.

PETITIONER
THROUGH COUNSEL
DATED: -08-2011.
(P. N. BHAT)
ADVOCATE

OFFICE OF SH. P. N. BHAT, ADVOCATE, J&K HIGH COURT, JAMMU.

To
The Advocate General,
Jammu and Kashmir Hon’ble High Court,
Jammu.
Sir,

Kindly acknowledge the receipt/copies of the writ petition titled

Manjit Singh V/S State & Ors so that the petitioner can file the above titled

writ petition before this Hon’ble High Court.

PETITIONER
THROUGH COUNSEL
Dated: -08-2011.

(P. N. BHAT)
ADVOCATE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT

JAMMU.

Manjit Singh S/O: Sital Singh R/O: Tulsi Bagh, Srinagar Kashmir, Age 59
years.
(Petitioner)
V/S

1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Principal Secretary, Revenue

Department, J&K, Jammu.

2. Relief Commissioner (M), Jammu.

3. Commandant 2-FOD, C/O: 56 APO.

(Respondents)
IN THE MATTER OF: Writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with section 103 of

the Constitution of J&K State for issuance of an

appropriate writ, direction or order.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,

The petitioners most respectfully submit as under: -

1. That the petitioner is a permanent resident of J&K State and

citizen of India, as such, entitled to invoke extra ordinary writ

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for enforcement of his legal,

statutory and fundamental rights guaranteed to him under the

Constitution.

2. That the wife of the petitioner alongwith two kids namely

Jaswant Singh (Son) and Rameet Kour (Daughter) migrated

from Kashmir valley in the year 1990 for security reasons like

other similarly situated members of the minority community. It is

further submitted that petitioner did not migrate from Kashmir

valley at any point of time. Petitioner requested his wife

Davinder Kour not to move outside Kashmir valley but for the

reasons best known to her she at the instance of her brother

migrated to Jammu against the consent of the petitioner. The

wife of the petitioner at his back submitted her application form

alongwith two kids for registration under relief category. Though

she has made the mention of the petitioner also in the Ration

Card in the initial stage but immediately the name of the

 petitioner has been deleted from the said ration card. It is

because of her migration from Kashmir valley, petitioner and his

wife Davinder Kour virtually separated from each other and

seized to be the wife and husband. The relations between the

parties became so strained that petitioner never paid any heed

towards his kids nor allowed the Davinder Kour to return back to

his matrimonial fold. It is only in the month of 2006, the

relatives of the parties intervened and thereafter the dispute

between the parties was settled by the Gurdwara Prabandak

Committee in the year 2006 itself and requested the petitioner to

share the matrimonial relationship with Davinder Kour and also

allow her to return back to Kashmir valley. It is because of the

compromise entered between the parties by the Gurduwara

Prabandak Committee, Jammu, Davinder Kour alongwith two

kids retuned back to the matrimonial fold of the petitioner and

from the year 2006 petitioner is residing with his wife Davinder

Kour and two kids in Kashmir valley. Copy of the compromise is

Annexure: A
enclosed herewith marked as Annexure: A.

3. That when Davinder Kour returned back to Kashmir valley in the

year 2006 she immediately surrendered the said Ration Card

and did not receive any relief in the shape of cash assistance

and free ration from the year 2006 onwards.

4. That Davinder Kour is having dispute with her brother viz-a-viz

the residential house situated at Nanak Nagar, Jammu wherein

Annexure: B
 Davinder Kour is claiming the share of the house being the

ancestral property. It is further submitted that a civil suit is

pending between the Davinder Kour and her brother in the court

of . Copy of the order passed by the court of

in order to authenticate that dispute is pending between

Davinder Kour and her brother is enclosed herewith marked as

Annexure: B.

5. That the respondents were satisfied viz-a-viz the status of

Davinder Kour and two small kids as migrants and after she

returned back to Kashmir valley, surrendered the ration card.

The respondents were satisfied about the genuineness of

Davinder Kour but her brother Daljit Singh filed a complaint

before the respondents that she has illegally drawn the relief as

she was not entitled to get the same because petitioner being

her husband was government employee. It is at the instance of

the said complaint, the respondent No. 2 has passed an order

dated 02-06-2011 addressed to the office of the petitioner for

affecting the recovery of relief drawn by the said Davinder Kour

Annexure: C
to the tune of Rs. 3,29,760/- Copy of the said order is enclosed
Annexure: C
herewith marked as Annexure: C.

Aggrieved by the impugned order as contained in Annexure:

C, petitioner challenges and calls into question the validity of the

said order on various grounds taken alternatively without

prejudice to each other:-

i) That it is an admitted case of the parties that petitioner never

migrated from Kashmir valley and never received any cash

assistance and free ration. It is also an admitted case of the

parties that Davinder Kour alongwith two kids migrated

from Kashmir valley in the year 1990 against the wishes

and consent of the petitioner and it is also an admitted case

of the parties that there were strained relations between

Davinder Kour and petitioner from 1990. it is also an

admitted case of the parties that petitioner’s name does not

figure in the Ration Card of Davinder Kour who had no

alternative but to register herself as migrant because

having no source of income at that point of time. She

deserted the company of the petitioner against his wishes

and that too at the instance of her brother and other family

members from the parental side. Petitioner did not play any

part in issuance of the ration card in favour of Davinder

Kour and once compromise was entered into between the

parties by the Gurdwara Prabandak Committee, the

petitioner agreed to share the matrimonial relationship with

Davinder Kour in the year 2006 and as soon as she

returned back to Kashmir valley for sharing the matrimonial

relationship with her husband, she surrendered the Ration

Card in the year 2006 itself. This fact is being admitted by

the respondents also. It is the complaint filed by her brother

 Daljit Singh who is having civil dispute in respect of the

ancestral property of their father viz-a-viz the residential

house at Nanak Nagar, Jammu, false and frivolous

complaint was filed against her an the respondent No. 2

without having enquiry in the matter passed the impugned

order. Such action of the respondents is patently illegal,

laconic, uncalled for, unreasonable, arbitrary in nature

which merits to be corrected by issuance of writ of certiorari

quashing the Order No. 696/DCV/RCM/2011 dated 02-06-

2011 with a further writ of mandamus commanding on

respondent No. 2 and 3 not to affect any recovery from the

petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order as contained

in Annexure: C.

ii) That the impugned order has been passed without any

enquiry and without any show cause notice. It is further

submitted that petitioner has not been issued any notice

viz-a-viz the illegal drawl of cash assistance by his wife

from 1990 to 2006 nor any shown cause notice was issued

to the Davinder Kour. All has been done at their back

without affording an opportunity of being beard and that too

upon the complaint of her brother who is having civil

dispute before the court of viz-a-viz the

residential house and other immovable property of their

father Chater Singh. The respondent No. 2 was supposed

 to have the detailed enquiry in the matter and provide

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as

Davinder Kour before passing of the impugned order. Such

order is patently violative of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution and on this ground also the impugned action of

the respondents merits to be corrected as prayed above.

iii) That since Davinder Kour is putting up separately from her

husband at Jammu against the wishes of the petitioner and

from 1990 to 2006 petitioner was not having any link with

wife and kids and it is because of this fact the said

Davinder Kour has been made head of the family in the

Ration Card issued by the respondent No. 2. It is pertinent

to mention here that in the year 2006 itself amnesty policy

was issued by the Government as well as the respondents

and all migrants were asked to surrender their illegal ration

cards voluntarily with an assurance that even though the

ration cards are found to be fraudulent and fake one, no

action would be initiated against them nor any recovery

proceedings shall be proceeded against them. Had

Davinder Kour having illegal ration card, she could have

easily got the benefit of the amnesty policy but the fact

remains that she was having strained relations with

petitioner and being the genuine migrant of Kashmir valley

from the year 2006, she was fully eligible and entitled to
 receive the cash assistance and free ration. It is further

submitted that petitioner never applied to the respondents

for issuance of D-Form and never produced any other

document before them for registering him as a migrant or

helped Davinder Kour in having the registration before

respondents. In the year 1990 it was the Daljit Singh her

brother who helped her for the registration and also helped

her to get the genuine Ration Card and it is only Daljit

Singh who thereafter filed complaint against her for

affecting the recovery because of the civil dispute viz-a-viz

their ancestral property. Had the respondents particularly

respondent No. 2 issued any show cause notice to the

petitioner or Davinder Kour, petitioner or Davinder Kour

would have satisfied the respondents about the illegality

committed or there was no fraud played by the petitioner.

On this sole ground the impugned order merits to be

corrected as prayed above.

iv) That petitioner is presently mentally sick and is suffering from

acute Nero problem. Petitioner is at the verge of retirement

and by the present impugned order it is added to his

disease and virtually petitioner has been rendered crippled.

Copies of the medical prescription are enclosed herewith

Annexure: D
marked as Annexure: D. It is further submitted that said

Daljit Singh who happens to be the brother-in-law of the

 petitioner has caused mental harassment and torture to the

family of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 at his

instance have passed the impugned order which can not

sustain under law. Such order is patently against law, fact

and justice, therefore, merits to be corrected as prayed

above.

2. That there is no efficacious remedy available to the petitioner

but to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

3. That no identical writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

before any Court, Tribunal, Supreme Court except the present

writ petition in hand.

An affidavit in support is enclosed herewith.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the above

said submissions and the submissions to be made at the time of hearing,

this Hon’ble Court may show indulgence in the matter by issuance of an

appropriate writ, direction or order including the one in the nature of:-

A/ Writ of certiorari quashing the Order No. 696/DCV/RCM/2011

dated 02-06-2011 as contained in Annexure: C.

B/ Writ of mandamus commanding on respondents No. 2 and 3 not to

affect the recovery in pursuance of the order as contained in

Annexure: C.
C/ Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper

in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of

the petitioner against the respondents.

PETITIONER
THROUGH COUNSEL
DATED: -08-2011.
(P. N. BHAT)
ADVOCATE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT

JAMMU.

Manjit Singh V/S State & Ors

-(Petitioner)- -(Respondents)-

IN THE MATTER OF: Affidavit in support of accompanying writ

petition.
 I, Manjit Singh S/O: Sital Singh R/O: Tulsi Bagh, Srinagar Kashmir,

Age 59 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the contents of the accompanying writ petition has been

drawn and drafted by my counsel as per my instructions.

2. That the contents of the accompanying writ petition are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Jammu on this the ___ day of

August 2011 that the averments made
above are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT

JAMMU.

Manjit Singh V/S State & Ors.

-(Petitioner)- -(Respondents)-

IN THE MATTER OF: Application for grant of interim relief.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,

The petitioners most respectfully submit as under: -

1. That the above titled writ petition is pending disposal before this
Hon’ble Court which is sure to succeed on its merits.
 2. That a strong prima facie case is in favour of the petitioner,
balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner also.

3. That for the sake of brevity petitioner craves leave of this

Hon’ble Court to rely on various grounds taken in the main
petition in order to avoid repetition; same may be permitted to be
adopted in this CMP also.

An affidavit in support is enclosed herewith.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that keeping in view the

above said submissions and the submissions to be made at the time of
hearing, this Hon’ble Court may show indulgence in the matter by staying
the operation of the impugned Order No. 696/DCV/RCM/2011 dated 02-
06-2011 as contained in Annexure: C till the final disposal of the writ
petition.

Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the
petitioner against the respondents.
PETITIONER
THROUGH COUNSEL
DATED: -08-2011.
(P. N. BHAT)
ADVOCATE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT

JAMMU.

Manjit Singh V/S State & Ors.

-(Petitioner)- -(Respondents)-

IN THE MATTER OF: Affidavit in support of accompanying CMP.

 I, Manjit Singh S/O: Sital Singh R/O: Tulsi Bagh, Srinagar Kashmir,
Age 59 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the contents of the accompanying CMP has been drawn

and drafted by my counsel as per my instructions.

2. That the contents of the accompanying CMP are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Jammu on this the ___ day of

August 2011 that the averments made
above are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT

JAMMU.

Mohd. Rafi S/O: Bashir Ahmed R/O: Muksiyas Tehsil Gandoh Distt. Doda.
(Petitioner)

V/S

1. State of J&K through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education

Department.
2. Director School Education, Jammu.
3. Chief Education Officer, Doda.
4. Zonal Education Officer, Batyas Bhallessa, Doda.
5. Nisar Ahmed S/O: Shakur Din R/O: Muksiyas Tehsil Gandoh
Distt. Doda.
 (Respondents)

SWP NO. 1565/2010

IN THE MATTER OF: CMP on behalf of Tariq Hussain S/O: Gh.

Mohi-ud-Din R/O: Muksiyas Malath, Tehsil

Gandoh Distt. Doda Age 25 years for arraying

him as respondent No. 6 in the aforesaid writ

petition.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,

The proposed respondent most respectfully submits as under:

1. That the respondents issued advertisement notice for filling up

two posts of RET teachers in NPS Muksiyas. Various

candidates including proposed respondents applied for the said

posts. After proper scrutiny of application forms of all eligible

candidates including petitioner, respondent No. 5 and proposed

respondent No. 6 were called for interview. The respondents

thereafter prepared merit list of the candidates and finally

recommended two candidates i.e. proposed respondent who is

figuring at Sr. No. 1 and the respondent No. 5. Copy of the penal

is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure: R1.

2. That petitioner herein has challenged the selection of

respondent No. 5 by way of writ petition No. 1565/2010 and the

Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the respondents not to

operate the penal as contained in Annexure: R1. Copy of the

 order passed by this Hon’ble Court is enclosed herewith marked

as Annexure: R2.

3. That neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 5 is aggrieved

of the selection of the proposed respondent, nobody has

challenged his selection nor they are aggrieved of the selection

of the proposed respondent because both of these candidates

know that proposed respondent is meritorious and fully eligible

and entitled to be appointed as RET Teacher against one of the

vacancy. The proposed respondent approached the authorities

that since the stay granted by this Hon’ble Court relates to the

respondent No. 5 only and there is no stay against the proposed

respondent, requested them to issue the appointment order in

his favour but the respondents show inability to issue the

appointment order in favour of the proposed respondent on the

ground that the penal has been stayed. The proposed

respondent requested the respondents that once the selection of

the proposed respondent is not under challenge, the stay shall

be treated viz-a-viz the respondent No. 5 only as it is settled law

that any order passed in the aforesaid writ petition may bind the

parties to the lis. The respondents did not agree with the

suggestion of the proposed respondent and, therefore, in the

aforesaid compelling circumstances, the proposed respondent is

approaching this Hon’ble Court in order to clarify the position

that whether the stay granted by this Hon’ble Court is operative

 against his interests or not. It is because of this circumstances,

the proposed respondent has became proper and necessary

party and wants to be arrayed at respondent No. 6 so that he is

also herd in the writ petition after filing the objections and other

documentary evidence. If the application for arraying proposed

respondent is not allowed, it would definitely effect his rights and

would accordingly be deprived of his selection without any right

or reason.

4. That in SWP No. 1827/2004 titled Dal Singh & Ors V/S State &

Ors wherein selection of the private respondent was stayed. In

addition to the said respondents there were other candidates in

the penal and the respondents also applied, stay granted,

respondents approached to the Hon’ble Court whose selection

was not under challenge. It is further submitted that the

candidates whose selection was not under challenge

approached this Hon’ble Court for arraying them as respondents

and accordingly applications were allowed and were arrayed as

respondents. Thereafter the Hon’ble Court passed an order

which is reproduced herein below:-

“ According to the petitioners, petitioners Learned

Counsel, the petitioners have not questioned of selection of
Zahida Banu who had figured at Sr. No. 4 in the first penal
and at Sr. No. 6 in the second penal for one of the posts of
Rehaber-E-Taleem Teachers available at Middle School/
Primary School Alni Gangota. That this view of matter, the
interim stay issued by this Court directing the State
respondents not to make appointment of RET in Village Alni,
 needs to be left in so far as it operates in the
consideration of Zahida Banu for her engagement as RET”.

It is further submitted that same situation is prevailing

in the present case and requires to be dealt on the same
analogy.
Copy of the said order is enclosed herewith marked as
Annexure: R3.
An affidavit in support is enclosed herewith.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the

aforesaid circumstances, the CMP may kindly be allowed and the

applicant may kindly be arrayed as respondent No. 6 in the aforesaid

writ petition with a further prayer that thereafter petition may kindly be

heard so that clarification is issued to the respondents that the stay

granted by this Hon’ble Court would not ifsofacto applicable to the

selection of the proposed respondent No. 6.

Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour

of the proposed respondent.

PROPOSED RESPONDENT
THROUGH COUNSEL

DATED: -08-2011.
(P. N. BHAT)
ADVOCATE
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT
JAMMU.

Mohd. Rafi V/S State & Ors

-(Petitioner)- -(Respondents)-

IN THE MATTER OF: Affidavit in support of accompanying CMP.

I, Tariq Hussain S/O: Gh. Mohi-ud-Din R/O: Muksiyas Malath,

Tehsil Gandoh Distt. Doda Age 25 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-

1. That the contents of the accompanying CMP has been drawn

and drafted by my counsel as per my instructions.

2. That the contents of the accompanying CMP are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Jammu on this the ___ day of

August 2011 that the averments made
above are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT
JAMMU.

Mohd. Rafi V/S State & Ors

-(Petitioner)- -(Respondents)-

I N D E X

S.No PARTICULARS DESCRIPTION PAGES

1. CMP 1 to

2. Annexure: R1 Copy of penal

3. Annexure: R2 Copy of order

4. Annexure: R3 Copy of order

5. Affidavit

6. Spare copies

PROPOSED RESPONDENT
THROUGH COUNSEL

DATED: -08-2011.
(P. N. BHAT)
ADVOCATE