Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/2026/2026 of INHABITANTS OF VILLAGE CHOUNTWARI TEHSIL ALOOSA Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (RURAL DEVELOPMENT) on 27 August 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(5486/2026) in WP(C) 2026/2026 CM(5487/2026). Inhabitants of Village Chountwari Tehsil Aloosa. …Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Anjum Ara, Advocate. VERSUS Union Territory of J & K & Ors. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(5486/2026) in WP(C) 2026/2026
CM(5487/2026).
Inhabitants of Village Chountwari Tehsil Aloosa.
…Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through:
Ms. Anjum Ara, Advocate.
VERSUS
Union Territory of J & K & Ors.
…Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr. Illyas Nazir Laway, Government Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
27.08.2026
1. The manner in which the petitioners are intending to maintain this representative writ petition is far away from being satisfactory, as there is an express lack of due diligence on the part of 1. Abdul Rashid Chaneeza S/o Lal Din Cheenza, 2. Zaib Din Chaneeza S/o Jalal Uddin Chaneeza, 3. Qamar Din Katariya, S/o Dood Din Katariya, and 4. Nadeem Ahmad Gojar S/o Niza, Ud Din Turk, purportedly claiming themselves to be the representatives of Village Aloosa Choontawari, District Bandipora.
2. The named petitioners are alleging that the work of construction and maintenance of road from L024-(Link Road) KM 4th of RR (Track) L08 to Chuntiwari, L. 4.552 KM, Stage Complete, Carriageway width 3.75 Mtrs, PMGSY-IV (Batch-I, 2026-27 (Waste Plastic Technology), P. No. JK15-4008, PMGSY Div Bandipora, is not the originally conceived work and that the tendering of the work by the Government under Pradhan Mantri 10 Regular
Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) is at the expense of the originally conceived plan wherein a longer road stretch with a different alignment was envisaged and promised.
3. Wherefrom the petitioners are gathering and reading all this is not stated in the writ petition or the documents accompanying therewith, but is now meant to be supplemented and introduced through the medium of an application meaning thereby, the documents which are intended to be brought on record through the medium of the application have not been set out in the writ petition as averments for substantiating the alleged grievance and apprehension of the petitioners.
4. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant indulgence to maintain this writ petition in a representative capacity, as such, application- CM No. 5486/2026 and writ petition-WP(C) No. 2026/2026 stand dismissed without prejudice to the right of actually aggrieved residents/inhabitants of village in reference to file fresh writ petition with full and complete disclosure of all relevant facts on the subject. In the event of filing of fresh writ petition be it by above named individuals or other residents, a certified copy of this order to accompany as annexure to fresh petition.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 27.08.2026 Bisma Jan.