Jammu & Kashmir High Court
District Rajouri vs 2. Tehsildar on 14 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Reserved on:10.07.2026
Pronounced on:14.07.2026
Uploaded on:15.07.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Ali Haider Shah, Aged 30 years,
S/o Sh. Khadim Hussain,
R/o Shah Manzil,
Near Police Station, Budhal,
Rajnagar, Tehsil Koteranka,
District Rajouri .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Sheikh Najeeb, Advocate.
V/s
1. Union Territory of J&K
through Commissioner/Secretary
to Government, Revenue Deptt.
Civil Secretariat, Jammu
2. Tehsildar, Koteranka
.....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Through the medium of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks
issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the action of respondent No. 2
whereby, vide e-mail dated 03.07.2026, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
(UT Format) bearing No. JK-REV-ST/2024/194254 dated 19.01.2025,
issued in favour of the petitioner, has been recalled/cancelled and the
petitioner’s application dated 18.06.2026 seeking issuance of a Scheduled
Tribe Certificate (Central Format) has been rejected. The petitioner also
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 2 of 16
seeks a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to issue the
Scheduled Tribe Certificate (Central Format) in his favour.
Brief facts:
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that pursuant to S.O. 176 dated
15.03.2024, whereby the Pahari Ethnic Group was included in the
Scheduled Tribe category, he, being a member of the said community,
applied before respondent No. 2 on 15.11.2024 for issuance of a Scheduled
Tribe Certificate. Along with the application, the petitioner furnished all
requisite documents in support of his claim. Upon consideration of his
application, respondent No. 2 issued a Scheduled Tribe Certificate (UT
Format) bearing No. JK-REV-ST/2024/194254 dated 19.01.2025 in
favour of the petitioner.
3. It is further pleaded that the petitioner thereafter submitted an
application dated 18.06.2026 seeking issuance of a Scheduled Tribe
Certificate in the Central Format. According to the petitioner, respondent
No. 2, instead of issuing the certificate, vide e-mail dated 03.07.2026
rejected the application on the ground that, as per the report of the Patwari
Halqa, the petitioner was a resident of District Reasi and was, therefore,
not eligible. By the same communication, respondent No. 2 also
recalled/cancelled the Scheduled Tribe Certificate (UT Format) earlier
issued in his favour.
4. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction
of this Court, inter alia, contending that respondent No. 2 lacked the
authority under law to cancel the Scheduled Tribe Certificate once issued
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 3 of 16
and that the impugned action has been taken without issuing any notice or
affording him an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the
principles of natural justice. It is also contended that there is no allegation
of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner so as to justify
cancellation of the certificate.
5. It is further pleaded that the petitioner had applied for various public
posts under the Scheduled Tribe category on the strength of the certificate
issued in his favour and that cancellation of the same has seriously
prejudiced his candidature.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Legal Analysis:
7. The principal question that arises for consideration in the present writ
petition is whether the petitioner, without availing the statutory remedy of
appeal and revision provided under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation
Act, 2004 and the Rules framed thereunder, could have directly invoked
the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for assailing the rejection of his application for
issuance of a Scheduled Tribe Certificate (Central Format) and the
consequential withdrawal of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate (UT Format)
earlier issued in his favour.
8. Before adverting to the contentions raised in the petition, it would be
appropriate to notice the statutory scheme governing the field. The
controversy in the present case is governed by the provisions of the Jammu
and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 and the Rules framed thereunder.
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 4 of 16
Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act, read with Rules 23 and 25 of the Jammu
and Kashmir Reservation Rules, provide a complete mechanism for grant of
category certificates and redressal of grievances arising therefrom, which read
as under:
“16. Issuance of Certificate. –The Competent Authority shall, within
fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the application and for reasons to
be recorded in writing either accept the application or reject it. On
acceptance of the application, the authority shall immediately issue the
requisite certificate to the applicant in the prescribed form.
17.Appeals.–(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Competent
Authority under section 16, may, at any time before the expiry of ninety
days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to–
(i) Deputy Commissioner, if the order appealed against is
passed by an officer below the rank of Deputy Commissioner
in his capacity as Competent Authority; or
(ii) Divisional Commissioner, if the order appealed against
ispassed by Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as
Competent Authority.
(2) The Appellate Authority shall, within 30 days from the date of receipt of
the appeal, pass such orders on it as it deems fit:
Provided that no order shall be made against any person without affording
him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
18. Revision. –The Appellate Authority may, suo moto or on an
application made to it, call for the records of the proceedings taken, or
orders made, by any Competent Authority for purposes of satisfying itself
as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or orders and may pass
such orders in reference thereto as it deems fit: Provided that no order shall
be made against any person without affording him a reasonable opportunity
of being heard.”
9. Rule 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, which
supplements Section 16 of the Act by prescribing the procedure for issuance
or rejection of a category certificate, and Rule 25 thereof, which provides for
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 5 of 16
the statutory remedy of appeal against an order of rejection passed under
Rule 23, read as under:
“23. Issuance of Certificate. – The Competent Authority shall within 15
days from the date of the receipt of the application for reasons to be
recorded in writing either accept the application or reject it. On the
acceptance of the application, the authority shall immediately issue the
requisite certificate to the applicant in Form VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV,
as the case may be.
25. Appeals. – (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of rejection of the
Competent Authority under rule 23 may, prefer an appeal to the appellate
authority under section 17 of the Act.”
10. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules
framed thereunder leaves no manner of doubt that the legislature has
provided a complete statutory mechanism governing the issuance of category
certificates and the remedies available against an order of rejection passed by
the Competent Authority. While Section 16 read with Rule 23 empowers the
Competent Authority to either accept or reject an application by recording
reasons in writing, Sections 17 and 18 of the Act read with Rule 25 provide
the statutory remedies of appeal and revision to an aggrieved person. The
Act and the Rules, thus, constitute a self-contained code providing an
efficacious mechanism for redressal of grievances arising out of orders passed
by the Competent Authority.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trade Marks, Mumbai and others‘, (1998) 8 SCC 1, while considering the
question of maintainability of a writ petition in the presence of an alternative
statutory remedy, has held as under:
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 6 of 16
“14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution
is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the
Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for
issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights
contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose.
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the
facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition.
But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is
that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would
not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been
consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three
contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the
enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a
violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings
are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a
plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic
whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the
constitutional law as they still hold the field.”
12. It is a settled principle of law that where a statute creates a right and
simultaneously provides complete machinery for redressal of grievances,
the aggrieved person is ordinarily required to exhaust the statutory
remedies before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, the petitioner
has not laid any factual or legal foundation in the writ petition to bring his
case within any of the aforesaid recognised exceptions. Neither is there
any challenge to the vires of the statute, nor has any case of violation of
fundamental rights, patent lack of jurisdiction or violation of the principles
of natural justice, so as to justify bypassing the statutory remedy, been
made out in the pleadings.
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 7 of 16
13. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner’s application
seeking issuance of a Scheduled Tribe Certificate (Central Format) came
to be rejected by the Competent Authority on the ground that, as per the
report of the Patwari Halqa, the petitioner was not eligible for the Pahari
Ethnic Group category as he was found to be a resident of District Reasi.
Instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal or revision against the
said order, as specifically provided under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act
read with the relevant Rules, the petitioner has chosen to invoke the writ
jurisdiction of this Court without even pleading any exceptional
circumstance which could justify bypassing the statutory remedies
available under the Act.
14. What assumes significance is that the petitioner himself has
reproduced the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act in the writ
petition and has acknowledged the existence of the statutory appellate and
revisional remedies. Having done so, the petitioner has, in the very same
petition, pleaded that no efficacious alternative remedy is available. Such
pleadings are self-contradictory and cannot be countenanced.
15. This Court, in ‘Bindu Singh Jamwal vs. UT of J&K and others,WP(C) No.
2588/2022, decided on 20.12.2022 held as under:
“15. The law in this regard is well settled that in face of availability of
statutory and equally efficacious remedy, writ petition should not be
entertained and the party concerned should be relegated to such alternative
remedy. There is no whisper in the writ petition which is filed by the
petitioner that he has availed alternate and efficacious remedy provided
under statute nor there is any averment that case of the petitioner falls
within the exceptional clause to give a right to the petitioner to bypass the
alternate efficacious remedy by approaching this Court straight way.
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 8 of 16
16. It is trite law that ordinarily relief under Article 226 of the constitution
of India is not available, if efficacious alternative remedy is available to
any aggrieved person. Where statuary remedy is created by law, the writ
petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. It is
also a well recognized principle of law that where a right or liability is
created by a statute, which provides for speedy remedy for enforcing it, the
remedy provided by the said statute alone should be availed of .Ì£
Undoubtedly, it is equally well settled that this canon of law is not free of
exceptions and alterative remedy is not a bar to the entertaining of the writ
petition filed for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where
there has been violation of principles of natural justice or where the order
under challenge wholly without jurisdiction or vires of the statute
providing for alternative remedy is otherwise under challenge.”
16. In the light of the aforesaid settled principles, this Court proceeds to
examine whether the petitioner has made out any exceptional
circumstance warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution
despite the availability of the statutory remedy and whether he has
approached this Court with the candour expected of a litigant invoking the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
17. A careful perusal of the record further reveals that the petitioner has
not approached this Court with complete candour and has withheld
material facts having a direct bearing on the controversy involved. Though
the grievance projected in the writ petition is primarily directed against the
e-mail dated 03.07.2026, the record placed on file discloses that the
competent authority had passed reasoned orders withdrawing the
Scheduled Tribe Certificate earlier issued in favour of the petitioner and
rejecting his application seeking issuance of a Scheduled Tribe Certificate
(Central Format). The said orders contain the reasons which constitute the
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 9 of 16
very foundation of the impugned action. However, instead of specifically
assailing those orders, the petitioner has consciously confined the
challenge only to the e-mail, thereby presenting an incomplete and
misleading picture before this Court.
18. Equally significant is the fact that the petitioner has not placed on
record a copy of the application submitted by him on 18.06.2026 seeking
issuance of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate (Central Format). In the
absence of the application itself, this Court is unable to examine the nature
of the claim projected before the competent authority and the documents
relied upon by the petitioner. The omission to place the said application
on record assumes significance as it deprives this Court of examining the
precise claim projected before the competent authority and, consequently,
reflects lack of complete disclosure while invoking the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
19. The order rejecting the application of the petitioner specifically records
that, as per the report of the Patwari Halqa concerned, the petitioner was
found ineligible for grant of the certificate under the Pahari Ethnic Group
category as he was a resident of District Reasi. The correctness or otherwise
of such factual determination necessarily involves appreciation of factual
material, which falls within the domain of the statutory authorities
constituted under the Act. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, would not ordinarily undertake such an
enquiry in the first instance, particularly when the statute itself provides an
effective appellate and revisional mechanism.
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 10 of 16
20. A perusal of the record reveals that vide e-mail dated 03.07.2026, the
petitioner was informed that the Scheduled Tribe Certificate (UT Format)
earlier issued in his favour pursuant to his application dated 15.11.2024
stood recalled/cancelled. The petitioner was also advised to visit the
ServicePlus portal to ascertain the reasons for the said decision. The reasons
recorded by the competent authority, as reflected on the ServicePlus portal,
are reproduced as under:
“The applicant applied for ST (Pahari) Central Certificate and, in
support of this application, he submitted his previously issued ST
(Pahari) (State) Certificate. This certificate has been reviewed. On
perusal of the documents and verification through the field staff, it
has been found that the applicant is not eligible for this category
certificate. The certificate seems to have been issued due to a
technical oversight. Hence, the certificate is now recalled and
cancelled with immediate effect.”
21. On the same date, i.e., 03.07.2026, the petitioner was informed that his
fresh application dated 18.06.2026 seeking issuance of a Scheduled Tribe
Certificate (Central Format) had been rejected and was similarly advised to
visit the ServicePlus portal for the reasons recorded by the competent
authority. The said reasons are reproduced as under:
“Applicant is not eligible for the said category certificate. As per the
report of PH concerned, the applicant is a resident of District Reasi.”
22. The aforesaid reasons, as reflected in the decisions available on the
ServicePlus portal pursuant to the communications dated 03.07.2026,
constitute the very foundation of the impugned action. They clearly disclose
that the earlier Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner
was recalled after recording reasons and that the petitioner’s fresh
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 11 of 16
application dated 18.06.2026 was independently rejected on the ground
that, as per the report of the Patwari Halqa concerned, he was not eligible
for the Pahari Ethnic Group category. Significantly, despite placing these
reasoned decisions on record, the petitioner has not specifically challenged
either of them in the present writ petition.
23. A combined reading of the aforesaid reasoned decisions leaves no
manner of doubt that the competent authority did not merely recall the
earlier certificate by way of a purported review, as sought to be projected in
the writ petition. Rather, the certificate earlier issued in favour of the
petitioner was recalled after recording reasons and the petitioner’s fresh
application dated 18.06.2026 was independently rejected on merits after
recording his ineligibility. These reasoned decisions constitute the real
foundation of the controversy before this Court.
24. The manner in which the writ petition has been drafted leaves no
manner of doubt that the petitioner has consciously attempted to project an
altogether different controversy before this Court. Instead of questioning the
reasoned decisions available on the ServicePlus portal, which form the basis
of the communications dated 03.07.2026, the petitioner has chosen to
challenge only the e-mails whereby he was informed of the withdrawal of
the earlier certificate and rejection of his fresh application. The obvious
object of adopting such a course was to create an impression that
respondent No. 2 had merely recalled an already issued certificate without
authority of law, while withholding from this Court the actual reasons
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 12 of 16
forming the basis of the impugned action. Such selective challenge amounts
to suppression of material facts and a clear attempt to mislead this Court.
25. It also goes without saying that the life of a category certificate cannot
be presumed to continue indefinitely for all times to come. The record
reveals that the petitioner applied afresh for issuance of a Scheduled Tribe
Certificate (Central Format). That application was considered on its own
merits and came to be rejected by a reasoned order recording that the
petitioner was not eligible for the Pahari Ethnic Group category, being a
resident of District Reasi. Significantly, the petitioner has not challenged the
said finding. Instead, he has attempted to project the controversy as though
the competent authority had merely reviewed or recalled an earlier
certificate without authority of law, thereby diverting attention from the
actual basis of the impugned action.
26. The inconsistencies in the pleadings do not end there. While the writ
petition proceeds on the basis of a Scheduled Tribe Certificate, paragraph 7(iii)
refers to an SC Certificate. More importantly, the petitioner has omitted
material pleadings regarding the actual orders passed by the competent
authority, has failed to produce the application forming the basis of the
impugned proceedings and has selectively challenged only the
communication/e-mail dated 03.07.2026. These circumstances cumulatively
demonstrate that the petitioner has not approached this Court with the fairness
and candour expected of a litigant invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
27. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances leaves little room for
doubt that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 13 of 16
Material facts have been consciously withheld, the substantive reasoned orders
have deliberately not been challenged and only the forwarding e-mail
communicating those orders has been questioned with a view to project an
altogether different controversy before this Court. Such selective challenge was
clearly intended to create an impression that the competent authority had,
without jurisdiction, merely reviewed or recalled an earlier certificate, while
suppressing the fact that the petitioner’s subsequent application had
independently been rejected by a reasoned order recording his ineligibility.
Such conduct, in the considered opinion of this Court, amounts to suppression
of material facts and an abuse of the process of law.
28. This Court, in ‘Fareed Hussain and another v. Union Territory of Jammu
and Kashmir and others‘, WP(C) No. 1510/2025, decided on 01.07.2025,
while dealing with a case where the petitioners had approached the writ
Court by suppressing material facts and attempting to abuse the process of
law, held as under:
“09. It is well settled that the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution will only be granted to the person, who comes to the Court
with clean hands, which means that a party seeking judicial intervention
must come to the Court in good faith without any form of deception,
misrepresentation or fraud. The Court has to exercise its discretion in
favour of justice, fairness and equity and will deny relief to a party, whose
conduct does not fall within these principles. Hence, a person, who is
found guilty of such fraudulent conduct, is not entitled to get relief
under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Jayaram and others vs
Bangalore Development Authority and ors reported in 2022 (12) SCC
815, has held as under:
“38. …As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 14 of 16226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must
disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against
him. He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose”
the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose
(conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are
suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise
would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts
having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is
because “the court knows law but not facts”.”
29. Once this Court arrives at the conclusion that the petitioner has invoked its
extraordinary jurisdiction by suppressing material facts and presenting an
incomplete factual picture, the petitioner disentitles himself to any
discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. A litigant who seeks
equity must come with clean hands, disclose all material facts and cannot be
permitted to obtain relief by concealment or selective disclosure.
Conclusion:
30. This Court is of the considered opinion that the conduct of the petitioner
was not a mere omission but a conscious attempt to mislead the Court. By
deliberately challenging only the e-mail dated 03.07.2026 while withholding a
challenge to the substantive reasoned orders, the petitioner attempted to
project a case as though the competent authority had exercised a power of
review or recall not vested in it under law. The obvious object of such selective
pleadings was to invite interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and
secure an interim order on an incomplete and distorted factual foundation.
Such conduct strikes at the very sanctity of the writ jurisdiction and deserves to
be strongly deprecated.
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 15 of 16
31. It is trite that a writ court does not ordinarily assume the role of the
statutory authority or the appellate forum to examine disputed questions of
fact or determine the eligibility of a person for issuance of a category
certificate in the first instance, particularly where the statute itself provides a
complete mechanism for adjudication of such disputes. The grievance of the
petitioner, including all questions relating to his eligibility and the
correctness of the findings recorded by the competent authority, can
appropriately be examined by the appellate or revisional authority in
accordance with the statutory scheme.
32. Consequently, the present writ petition deserves dismissal on two
independent grounds. Firstly, the petitioner has failed to avail the
efficacious statutory remedy of appeal and revision available under the
Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004. Secondly, the petitioner has
failed to approach this Court with clean hands by suppressing material facts
and presenting an incomplete factual picture. However, notwithstanding
the dismissal of the present writ petition, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
avail the statutory remedy of appeal and/or revision before the competent
authority, if so advised, in accordance with law.
33. In the event the petitioner prefers an appeal or revision against the
impugned orders, the competent appellate/revisional authority shall
consider the same, including the question of limitation, strictly in
accordance with law and on its own merits, without being influenced by the
observations made in this judgment on the merits of the claim of the
WP(C) No. 2030/2026 Page 16 of 16
petitioner, while also taking into consideration the period during which the
present writ petition remained pending before this Court.
34. Before parting, this Court considers it necessary to observe that a litigant
invoking the extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution is under a solemn obligation to make a full, fair and candid
disclosure of all material facts. The petitioner, instead of doing so,
deliberately withheld the substantive orders forming the foundation of the
impugned action from challenge, selectively questioned only the forwarding
e-mail and attempted to portray an altogether different case with a view to
invite interference by this Court. Such conduct amounts to an abuse of the
process of law and warrants imposition of exemplary costs. Accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-, which
shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court within a
period of four weeks from today.
35. Registry is directed to list this matter immediately upon the expiration
of the stipulated period of four weeks only for the purpose of placing on
record the information by way of a compliance index, verifying whether the
order passed by this court to the extent of deposition of the costs has been
complied with or not.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
Jammu:
14.07.2026
Nikhil
Whether judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether judgment is reportable: Yes/No
