Jammu and Kashmir High Court
LPA/139/2021 of RAFIA YAQOOB Vs UNION OF INDIA TH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND GAS AND OTHERS on 31 December 2021
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court Case: LPA No. 139 of 2021 Rafia Yaqoob .....Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through :- Smt. Monika Kohli, Advocate v/s Union of India and Others .....Respondent(s) Through :- Sh. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 CORAM:
Sr. No. 31
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case: LPA No. 139 of 2021
Rafia Yaqoob
.....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through :-Smt. Monika Kohli, Advocate
v/s
Union of India and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Through :-Sh. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, 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
01. Heard Smt. Monika Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Anuj Dewan Raina, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
02. The petitioner-appellant participated in the tender process for the award of the dealership of LPG but subsequently, her candidature was cancelled. Therefore, she preferred a writ petition which is pending consideration.
03. In the meantime, as a fresh tender process was initiated. It was challenged by the petitioner-appellant by filing a separate writ petition wherein the Court by the impugned order dated 10.09.2021 has refused to grant interim stay to the petitioner-appellant.
04. The appeal is directed against an interlocutory order by which the petitioner-appellant has been refused interim stay pending the writ petition with liberty to her to participate in the tender process without prejudicing to the outcome of her earlier writ petition, WP(C) No. 391 of 2021.
05. The above order which is of interlocutory in nature and does not decides anything as such does not have the trappings of a final judgment so as to make it amenable to an appeal.
06. A full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in ‘Ashutosh Shrotriya and Others v. Vice-Chancellor, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar University and Others, AIR 2015 Allahabad 187,’ in reference to what constitute a judgment for the purposes of appeal held that orders which are merely procedural in nature and which does not decides any lis would not be amenable to special or letters patent appeal.
07. The petitioner-appellant can very well pursue the writ petition and get it decided rather than approaching this Court in appeal.
08. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not deem it to be a fit case for interference in an appeal.
09. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner-appellant to press the writ petition and it is expected that in case the writ court is so approached, the court will do its best to decide the petition most expeditiously.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI) (PANKAJ MITHAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU 31.12.2021 TILAK