MUSHTAQ RASHID LONE vs REVENUE DEPARTMENT on 3 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR Order Sheet Item no.: 11 M.A./1478/2026 (SRINAGAR) [ Interim order ] In O.A./1145/2026 TRANSFER/POSTING C.P./273/2026 Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 03/11/2026 MUSHTAQ RASHID LONE Vs REVENUE DEPARTMENT

For Applicant(s) Advocate : M.I.DAR

For Respondent(s) Advocate : RAIS UD DIN GANAI - DAG Order of The Tribunal 01/ The instant M.A 1478/2026, arising out of O.A 1145/26, wherein the petitioner seeks extension of the interim protection granted in terms of order dated 14-10- 2026 passed in the main case, whereunder challenge has been thrown to the order bearing No. 82/DCB/PS of 2026 dated 06-10-2026. 02/ The said O.A came up for consideration on 14-10- 2026, in which, inter alia, the following was passed. “10/ In the meanwhile, subject to objections of the other side and till next date of hearing, present incumbent - the Deputy Commissioner, Badgam, to consider the case of the petitioner, for which the petitioner is directed to move a detailed representation before him within four days' and the same shall be dealt with by passing appropriate orders within one week thereafter and for one week, the impugned order bearing No. 82/DCB/PS of 2026 dated 06-10-2026 is kept in abeyance. Mr. Rais - DAG to also submit the compliance as regards disposal of the representation to be filed by the petitioner.” 03/ The main O.A came up for consideration again on 28-10-2026, wherein the learned counsel for the respondents – Mr. Rais ud din Ganai – DAG, submitted that the competent authority has considered and disposed of the representation of the petitioner on 27-10-2026 and copy of the same has also been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was also stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order dated 14-10- 2026 stands complied with by the Deputy Commissioner (DC), Badgam, as such, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to keep the order impugned in abeyance has no merit. 04/ In the above backdrop, the court did not find any favour to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to extend the interim direction dated 14-10- 2026 as is sought by medium of the instant M.A. 05/ Mr. Rais – DAG submitted that once the interim order has been complied with and the order of consideration has been passed, what was incumbent upon the petitioner was to have challenged the said order by way of filing of a fresh O.A. He further submitted that in principle, the O.A 1145/2026 has been rendered infructuous and the petitioner, if he so chooses, can challenge the consideration order passed by the DC Badgam, or in the alternative assail the order dated 28-10- 2026 passed by this court, before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K, as no cause survives for him to seek extension of the interim order through the instant M.A. 06/ Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that till disposal of the main O.A, the interim order dated 14-10-2026 deserves to be extended. It needs a mention that this argument would have prevailed had this court not passed the order on 28-10-2026 whereby this submission of the petitioner stands already considered, as such, passing an order in the instant M.A would amount to multiplying the proceedings as the petitioner is seeking the same relief, which has been declined by the court vide order dated 28-10-2026. To substantiate the contention we are fortified by a judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of J&K, Srinagar, passed on 23-10-2026 in case titled as Shahnaza Bano versus U.T of J&K (WPC 3380/2026). 07/ Prima facie, what appears from the contents of the order of consideration dated 27-10-2026 is that the earlier direction of the court dated 14-10-2026 stands complied with and a fresh cause of action, to seek redressal of the grievance, has arisen in favour of the petitioner. In this view, we are fortified by the judicial pronouncements of the apex court and other judgements of various High Courts’ of the country titled as J.S.Parihar versus Ganpat Duggar, 1996 vol. 6 SCC 291, Sudhir Vasudeva versus M.George Ravi Shekheran 2014 vol. 3 SCC 373, S.K.Shamshad Hussain Warsi and another versus Mohi ud din Khan and others, 2024 Legal Eagle Calcutta, 415. 08/ Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the rival contentions and the case law cited at the bar. 09/ For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that this M.A merits dismissal and we, accordingly, do so. However, it needs a mention that any expression made hereinabove, shall have no bearing upon the final outcome of the main O.A and same shall be listed on the date already fixed therein. Prasant Kumar Member (A) M. S. Latif Member (J) Tariq Mota ( ps consultant )