MOHAMMAD YOUSUF ALLIE vs HIGH COURT OF J AND K AND ANR. (LAW, JUSTICE AND PARLIATMENTARY AFFAIRS) (DB-II)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR


CM No. 8/2025 in
RP No 01/2025
Reserved on: 04.05.2026
Pronounced on: 14.05.2026

Uploaded on: 14.05.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: FULL

Mohammad Yousuf Allie (Age 62 years)
S/o Gh. Ahmad Allie
R/o Rakshilvat, Tehsil Sonawari
District Baramulla, J&K


…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Mr. A. Haqani, Sr. Adv. with
Through:
Mr. Asif Wani, Adv.
Vs.


1. High Court of JK and Ladakh through
its Registrar General, Srinagar, J&K.
2. Government of Jammu and Kashmir
through Secretary to Government,
Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary
Affairs, Judicial Administration Section,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar


...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. M. I. Qadiri, Sr. Adv. for R-1
Mr. Fahim Shah, GA for R-2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

J U D G M E N T

Per Sanjeev Kumar:-J
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 502 days in
filing an application seeking review of the judgment dated 18th of July 2023
passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP (C) No. 1221/2021 titled
Mohammad Yousuf Allie vs. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr.
The huge delay of more than 500 days in filing a review petition is sought to
be explained by pleading that the judgment dated 18th of July 2023, which is

CM No. 08/2025 IN RP No. 01/2025 Page 1 of 9
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
14.05.2026

sought to be reviewed, was initially challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court by filing an SLP, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
on 5th of January 2024.
2. Being dissatisfied with the dismissal of the SLP, the review petitioner
filed a review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was
registered as Review Petition (Civil) No. 1253/2024. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court dismissed the review petition aforesaid vide its order dated 24th of
July 2024.
3. It is submitted that after the dismissal of the review petition on 24th of
July 2024, the petitioner looked for an appropriate legal advice for working
out a remedy against the judgment sought to be reviewed. It took him few
months to get good advice and file the review petition, which was filed on
31st of December 2024. The condonation of delay application is contested
by the respondents, who, in their objections have taken a plea that the
petitioner has failed to give any cogent or sufficient reason to explain a delay
of more than 500 days. It is submitted that the petitioner was pursuing the
remedies before the Supreme Court, and it was only after he failed to get any
relief from the Supreme Court, he decided to seek the review of the
judgment, which had attained finality with the dismissal of SLP and the
review petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further pleaded by
respondents that even after the dismissal of review petition by the Supreme
Court, the petitioner took more than five months to file the review petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has
miserably failed to demonstrate any cause, muchless a sufficient cause,

CM No. 08/2025 IN RP No. 01/2025 Page 2 of 9
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
14.05.2026

which prevented him from filing the review petition within the period of
limitation. There is huge delay of 502 days which has remained unexplained.
5. It is true that initially the judgment passed by this court which is now
sought to be reviewed, was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
SLP No. 24504/2023, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
on 5th of January 2024 by passing the following order:
“We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

6. The petitioner did not relent, and instead of accepting his fate, filed a
review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which too came to be
dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 24th of July
2024. For complete five months, the petitioner did nothing and probably had
reconciled with his fate.
7. However, belatedly it occurred to him that there is still one remedy
which can be invoked and this is how he decided to file a review petition,
and which was filed in the Registry of this court on 31st of December 2024.
There is absolutely no good reason given by the petitioner to explain these
five months, except that consultation with the lawyer was going on.
Needless to say that in the instant case, the petitioner had invoked all
possible remedies available to him, including filing of SLP and the review
petition before the Supreme Court, and all this had been done by the
petitioner through his advocates and upon legal advice. It is, therefore, not
acceptable that after the dismissal of his SLP and review petition by the
Supreme Court, it took him five months to take a decision with regard to
filing of the review petition before this Court.

CM No. 08/2025 IN RP No. 01/2025 Page 3 of 9
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
14.05.2026

8. That apart, the petitioner could not point out anything shockingly
erroneous in the judgment sought to be reviewed, which may have persuaded
us to construe the delay liberally.
9. We have gone through the judgment sought to be reviewed and are of
the view that the judgment passed is in consonance with law and does not
suffer from any error apparent on the face of record.
10. The petitioner was selected in the J&K Judicial Services as Munsiff,
st
(Judicial Magistrate) 1 Class in the year 2000 under RBA Category. He got
this benefit of reservation on the basis of an RBA Certificate purportedly
issued by the competent revenue authority. One Riyaz Ahmad Gadda
challenged the selection of the petitioner in SWP No. 1724/1999 , inter alia
on the ground that the petitioner was not a resident of Rakhsahilvat, and
therefore, was not entitled to the benefit of reservation earmarked for
residents of backward areas. There was another petition filed by one Javed
Ahmad, i.e., SWP No. 973/2000 on the similar grounds.
11. The learned Single Judge of this court who was seized of the petitions
passed an interim order on 11th of August 2003, directing the Registrar
Vigilance of this court to conduct an enquiry and give its report. The
Registrar Vigilance conducted the inquiry in terms of aforesaid interim order
and concluded that the petitioner had secured a place in the J&K Judicial
Service on the basis of a fabricated RBA certificate. The petition was finally
disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 6th of June 2008.
12. An LPA preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of learned
Single Judge was partially allowed, and the judgment of Single Judge was
modified. The Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora was directed to conduct an

CM No. 08/2025 IN RP No. 01/2025 Page 4 of 9
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
14.05.2026

enquiry into the genuineness of the RBA certificate in terms of SRO 126 of
1994. The direction given by the learned Single Judge to Registrar Vigilance
to conduct an enquiry in this regard was virtually set aside. Be that as it may,
the report of the Registrar Vigilance was taken cognizance of by the High
Court on the administrative side and placing prima facie reliance thereon,
the High Court suspended the petitioner from service. Be that as it may, the
petitioner did not accept even the order of the Division Bench directing the
Deputy Commissioner Bandipora to conduct an enquiry in place of Registrar
Vigilance and took the matter before the Supreme Court by way of SLP No.
13751-13752/2016 titled Mohammad Yousuf Allai vs Javed Ahmad Geelani
and Ors. Initially, the Apex Court stayed the impugned judgment passed by
the Division Bench, but later on, modified it and directed the Deputy
Commissioner, Bandipora to complete its enquiry into the genuineness of
the RBA certificate and submit a report to it.
13. While the SLP against the Division Bench judgment was pending, the
enquiry was completed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora and a
report dated 30.01.2018 was submitted to the Supreme Court, in which the
Deputy Commissioner, had concluded that the RBA certificate relied upon
by the petitioner to secure appointment as Munsiff was fake and not issued
by his office. Apprehending that on the basis of this report, his SLP would
be dismissed on merits, the petitioner approached the Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir by way of a review petition, who referred the
review petition to the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora to review its order
dated 30.01.2018. The Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora conducted fresh
rd
proceedings and prepared a 3 report dated 7th of July 2018, wherein he

CM No. 08/2025 IN RP No. 01/2025 Page 5 of 9
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
14.05.2026

absolved the petitioner completely and held the RBA certificate possessed
by him to be valid.
14. After obtaining this favourable report from the Deputy Commissioner,
the petitioner very cleverly withdrew his SLP stating that the same had been
rendered infructuous. The SLP was dismissed as infructuous by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 13th of July 2021.
15. Based upon the report prepared by the Deputy Commissioner holding
the certificate possessed by the petitioner as fabricated one, the Full Court
recommended the termination of services of the petitioner to the
Government vide its Communication dated 25th of August 2021. The
recommendations were accepted by the Government and vide Government
Order dated 10th of September 2021, the petitioner was terminated from
service. The petitioner challenged this termination order by way of WP(C)
1221/2021, wherein a strong reliance was placed on the third report
submitted by the Deputy Commissioner on the directions of the Divisional
Commissioner to contend before this Court that ultimately his RBA
certificate had been found to be valid and, therefore, there was no good
ground or justification to terminate his services.
16. The issue was considered by the Division Bench at length and it was
concluded that the Divisional Commissioner before whom a review petition
had been filed by the petitioner had no authority to delegate its powers of
review to the Deputy Commissioner for adjudication and, therefore, the third
report favourable to the petitioner was prepared by the Deputy
Commissioner without any authority of law and was of no consequence.

CM No. 08/2025 IN RP No. 01/2025 Page 6 of 9
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
14.05.2026

17. The Division Bench also adverted to provisions of Rule 31 and 32 and
turned down the similar contention as is raised by Mr. Haqani before us to
the extent that the reviewing/revisional authority is competent to pass such
orders as it deems fit and such orders would include the orders passed by the
reviewing/revisional authority to the subordinate authority to conduct a fact-
finding inquiry. Much emphasis was laid by Mr. Haqani on the provisions of
Rule 31 and 32. We are not reproducing Rule 31 & 32 of the J&K
Reservation Rules, 2005 for the reason that the same have been elaborately
reproduced in para 19 and 20 of the judgment sought to be reviewed.
18. From reading of Rule 31, It is abundantly clear that the order passed
by the Deputy Commissioner is appealable before the Divisional
Commissioner. However, the review and revisional power is given to the
appellate authority which can be exercised by it suo-moto or on an
application made by the party aggrieved. The power of review and revision
is restricted to calling for record of the proceedings taken or order so made
by an authorized officer under the rules. For the purposes of satisfying itself
as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or orders, the power to
pass such orders as the revisional authority deems fit is given only in
reference to the proceedings of which the record is summoned by the
revisional authority. Although in Rule 32, the expression used is
“review/revision”, yet from reading of Rule 32, it clearly transpires that the
appellate authority under the rules is conferred only a power of revision.
19. In the instant case, the Divisional Commissioner could have only
called for the records of the proceedings undertaken by the Deputy
Commissioner or the order, if any, passed by him with a view to satisfying
itself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order. The power

CM No. 08/2025 IN RP No. 01/2025 Page 7 of 9
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
14.05.2026

given to the appellate authority is statutory in nature and cannot be further
delegated to any authority. We are, however, not in disagreement with
learned counsel for the petitioner that with a view to satisfying itself about
the legality and propriety of any proceedings or order, the revisional
authority may send for a report from the subordinate officers. However, in
the instant case, as is found by the Division Bench, the review petition was
straightway transferred and assigned to the Deputy Commissioner for
passing appropriate orders after holding fresh inquiry. The Deputy
Commissioner conducted a new enquiry which was contrary to the two
reports already submitted by him, one of which was submitted before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and, accordingly, disposed of the review petition.
We could understand if the Deputy Commissioner would have submitted the
report to the Divisional Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner
would have taken a decision thereupon after affording an opportunity of
being heard to all the stakeholders.
20. It is correctly found by the Division Bench that the Divisional
Commissioner who was an appellate authority against the orders passed by
the Deputy Commissioner abdicated its statutory duty and allowed the
Deputy Commissioner to decide the review petition which was filed before
him and which ought to have been decided by him. The contention of
learned counsel to the contrary has been rightly dealt with and rejected by
the Division Bench and, therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the
Division Bench suffers from an error apparent on face of record. Besides the
appellant has already tested the legality of the judgment of the Division
Bench sought to be reviewed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court has found no good reasons to interfere with the judgment and

CM No. 08/2025 IN RP No. 01/2025 Page 8 of 9
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
14.05.2026

has dismissed the SLP. Even the review petition filed by the petitioner also
stands dismissed.
21. Viewed in this context, we are not inclined to condone the delay and
reopen a well-reasoned judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court
and which stands upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the dismissal of
the SLP. We are not disputing the proposition of law put forth by Mr.
Haqani that the dismissal of SLP without assigning reasons does not result
into merger of the judgment of the High Court in the order/judgment passed
in the SLP. In appropriate cases, the review petition against of the judgment
of the High Court would be maintainable notwithstanding that an SLP
against the said judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in limini without assigning any reasons. Nor there can be any quarrel with
the proposition that a judgment passed by this Court which suffers from a
gross error apparent on the face of record can be reviewed/recalled to do
substantial justice.
22. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
the two rounds of litigation pursued by the petitioner upto the level of
Supreme Court without any success, we do not find it a fit case for
condoning the delay.
23. The application for condoning the delay is dismissed. Consequently,
review petition also stands dismissed.



(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
14.05.2026
Altaf

Whether approved for reporting? Yes

CM No. 08/2025 IN RP No. 01/2025 Page 9 of 9
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
14.05.2026