Order restraining KCCI office bearers from decision-making to remain operative: High Court

Representational Pic

J&K High Court has held that the trial court order barring the office bearers of Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) from taking decisions will remain operative till it decides an appeal challenging the order.

“Till the judgment is announced, the order passed by the 4th additional district judge, Srinagar, impugned in the appeal, shall continue to hold the field and be operative” said an order passed by of Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey.

In its order, the trial court has restrained the office bearers of KCCI from taking decisions. The KCCI has challenged this order before the High Court.

The direction came after the Court observed that initially it had got the impression that the parties had responded positively to election to 21-member KCCI executive committee.

“But then, whereas the respondent-plaintiffs appeared to be prepared to go by the efforts put in by the Court in this regard, the appellant-defendants seemed to demonstrate a dithering attitude,” the Court said.

Observing that after hearing the parties through their counsel on September 15 and reserving its orders, the Court said while considering the case it had perceived that the parties to the appeal were genuinely interested in conducting the election to the 21-member committee.

The Court said it accordingly passed order dated September 18 which was followed by order dated September 22.

“I think it would be distasteful to narrate herein all that what happened and transpired during this period. It would suffice to say that the efforts put in by the Court in this regard have failed. That is it,” Justice Magrey said.

On September 18, the Court had proposed constitution of committees for the conduct of the election to KCCI executive body.

For ensuring the tasks are performed honestly and in transparent manner, the Court had also proposed to nominate Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar as an overall supervising officer to oversee the performance of the tasks by the committees who, it had said, would be assisted by two former Principal District Judges.

The Court said in light of the given circumstances since the matter has already been heard and the judgment reserved, it would, accordingly, proceed to decide the appeal.

“In view of the changed circumstances, this appeal need not be listed on October 28, consequently,” the court said, adding revision petition cannot be listed with the appeal.

While the court directed its Registry to list the revision petition separately on October 28, it said the date for listing of the appeal for pronouncement of the judgment would be communicated separately as and when the judgment was ready. Notably, the revision plea is against an order of the trial court.