Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 653 (JK)

State of J&K and Ors. v. I. A. Enterprises

2012-10-10

HASNAIN MASSODI, M.M.KUMAR

body2012
M.M. Kumar, CJ.— 1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 30.07.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OWP No. 162/2011 disposing of the writ petition along with CMPs. The order has been passed on the agreement of the parties. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge shows that a consensus had reached between the parties whereby the appellants were to accept the auction bid of the highest bidder which was submitted in response to Tender Notice dated 05.06.2010. In view of the aforesaid consensus reached between the parties, the writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the writ petitioner-respondent to re-agitate the matter on the fresh cause available. Interim order dated 21.02.2011 stood vacated. Mr. Kawoosa, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there was no instruction to the learned Government Advocate who represented the appellants before the learned Single Judge to act in the manner he did. According to Mr. Kawoosa, a letter dated 09.07.2011 was addressed to the learned Government Advocate to ensure vacation of the stay order passed by this Court in February, 2011 so that further appropriate action for disposal of the accumulated empty bags be taken. Similar letters has been written on 21.07.2011 (R-5). 2. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by Mr. Kawoosa, learned counsel for the appellant and are of the view that the appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent would not be maintainable because the impugned order has bee passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of consensus reached between the parties. Accordingly, the appellants were to accept the auction bid of the highest bidder received in response to the Tender Notice dated 05.06.2010. The writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the writ petitioner-respondent to re-agitate the matter on the fresh cause, if any, available to it. The reliance of Mr. Kawoosa on the letters dated 09.07.2011 & 21.07.2011 would not cut any ice because the aforesaid letters merely stated that the stay order be got vacated. There is nothing brought on record that the State counsel who has appeared before the learned Single Judge was not authorized to make the statement. The reliance of Mr. Kawoosa on the letters dated 09.07.2011 & 21.07.2011 would not cut any ice because the aforesaid letters merely stated that the stay order be got vacated. There is nothing brought on record that the State counsel who has appeared before the learned Single Judge was not authorized to make the statement. No affidavit either of the learned counsel or of the authorities has been filed which may necessitate to hold a probe into the oral assertion made by Mr. Kawoosa. Thus in the absence of any foundation laid to show that it was unauthorized statement made by the learned Government Advocate before the learned Single Judge, it is not possible for us to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.