Authorities Directed to Decide Departmental Jurisdiction Grievances Within Eight Weeks

The petitioner-Committee sought relief concerning the administrative jurisdiction of Panzinara and Ranbirgarh Pratapgarh.

It asserted that SRO 185 dated 22 May 2007 placed the Estates within the territorial and revenue jurisdiction of District Srinagar, but several essential departments—including Jal Shakti (PHE), KPDCL and Health—continued to function under adjoining districts, causing hardship to residents

A Deputy Commissioner’s committee reportedly recommended jurisdictional adjustments in its report dated 18 October 2025, and the Divisional Commissioner raised the issue with the General Administration Department on 19 November 2025; no final decision had been taken

The petitioner sought implementation of SRO 185, a decision on the recommendations, and effective delivery of essential services

In a connected application under Order I Rule 8 CPC, Hafizullah Mir sought permission to institute the writ petition in a representative capacity on behalf of the Committee

1. Whether Hafizullah Mir could institute the writ petition in a representative capacity on behalf of the petitioner-Committee

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the Committee’s grievances and decide the matter concerning departmental jurisdiction and service delivery

The Court expressly considered Order I Rule 8 CPC in deciding the application for representative capacity, and permitted Hafizullah Mir to file the petition on behalf of the Committee on the grounds stated in the application and the submissions made

The judgment cites no precedent or detailed statutory test concerning the substantive jurisdictional dispute.

It disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the grievances and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a specified period

The application was supported by an attested affidavit stating that the Committee’s members and office bearers had nominated Hafizullah Mir as Chairman and authorized him to institute the petition representatively.

On that basis and the submissions at the Bar, the Court granted permission under Order I Rule 8 CPC

On the writ petition, the Court did not determine whether SRO 185 required the requested departmental realignment or whether the recommendations should be implemented.

The petitioner sought a time-bound decision, and the Senior Additional Advocate General did not oppose disposal with a direction for the Government to examine the grievance; the Court therefore ordered consideration and a decision in accordance with law

disposed of WP(C) No. 2446/2026 with a direction to the respondents to look into the petitioner-Committee’s grievances and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within eight weeks

The Court did not grant a substantive determination on the requested jurisdictional changes.

Connected applications were also disposed of