Karnail Singh vs. U T Of J And K Th Its Managing Director Projects Construction Corporation LTD And Others

Held

The High Court held that the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Writ Court, dismissing the writ petition on merits in the absence of the appellant, was not sustainable in law. The Court reasoned that a writ petition should not be decided on merits without giving the petitioner a due opportunity of hearing. The Court stated that the Writ Court ought to have either dismissed the petition for non-prosecution or adjourned the matter. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the learned Writ Court for fresh consideration after providing the appellant with a due opportunity of hearing. The High Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The appellant, Karnail Singh, filed an intra-court appeal against an order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the Writ Court, which had dismissed his writ petition (WP(C) No. 2861/2023). The appellant contended that the Writ Court decided the matter on merits in his absence, thereby denying him an opportunity to present his case. The original writ petition sought a direction to the respondents (J&K Project Construction Corporation Ltd. and its officials) to release GST interest amounting to Rs. 6.55 lakhs, calculated by the State Taxes Officer, Circle-H, Jammu, in respect of work contracts allotted to the petitioner from September 2017 to March 2018 and onwards.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Writ Court erred in deciding the writ petition on merits in the absence of the appellant/writ petitioner, thereby violating his right to a fair hearing? The appellant argued that the Writ Court should not have dismissed the writ petition on merits without affording him an opportunity to be heard. He contended that the proper course of action would have been to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution or to adjourn the matter. The respondents, through their counsel, waived notice and did not present any arguments against the appellant's contention regarding the procedural irregularity.