Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Bhole Bhandari Charitable … vs Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (Sasb) on 22 July, 2025
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
AT JAMMU
Reserved on : 18.07.2025
Pronounced on : 22.07.2025
WP(C) No. 1185/2025
Bhole Bhandari Charitable Trust(Regd.)
Registered Office: D-108,
Phase V, Focal Point Ludhiana-141010, Punjab
Through its President, Mr. Rajan Gupta, age 65,
S/o Sh. Joginder Kumar,
R/o 49/14-E, Sandeep Nagar, Behind Gulmor Hotel,
Ludhiana - 141001.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nigam Mehta, Advocate
Mr. J. A. Hamal, Advocate
Vs
1. Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB), Jammu/Srinagar through its
Chairman, Chaitanya Ashram, Talab Tillo, Jammu.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Shri Amarnath Shrine Board, Chaitanya Ashram,
Talab Tillo, Jammu.
3. Additional CEO, Shri Amarnath Shrine Board, Chaitanya Ashram, Talab
Tillo, Jammu.
4. Deputy CEO, Shri Amarnath Shrine Board, Chaitanya Ashram.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. Advocate
(through virtual mode) with
Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. Heard Mr. P. N. Raina, learned Sr. Advocate for the
petitioner as well as Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Sr.
2 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
Advocate for the respondents. Perused the writ pleadings
and the documents therewith.
02. The petitioner – Bhole Bhandari Charitable Trust
(“BBCT” in short) is a trust constituted in terms of trust-
deed dated 17.01.2002 with its head office located in
Ludhiana, Punjab. The registration of the petitioner-BBCT
as a religious charitable trust is vide a trust-deed dated
17.01.2022 registered by the Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana. Vide
an amended trust-deed dated 11.06.2002, the trust-deed
came to be amended which amendment is also duly
registered.
03. The petitioner-BBCT is, thus, a non-governmental
organization (NGO) which has given to itself aims and
objectives and the primary one is organization of free
langars, providing free tented/pucca accommodations,
medical facilities and other facilities to Shri Amarnath Ji
Yatris which seems to be a moving spirit of the
persons/members aligned, affiliated and associated with the
petitioner-BBCT in its engagement as religious and
charitable organization.
04. In the writ petition, the petitioner-BBCT claims that
the motivation to constitute trust in the year 2002 by its
founding members emanated from their routine annual
pilgrimage without a miss to Shri Amarnath Ji Holy Cave for
3 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
the darshan of Divine Deity Bhole Shankar seated and
obtaining annually in Lingam attaining form and its
dissolution co-inciding with pious day of Shravan Purnima.
05. The petitioner-BBCT submits that its founders as
well as its trustees have been regularly setting up langars
for the last 28 years to serve the pilgrimage (yatra) of men
and women, rich and/or poor, young and/or old, ascetics
(sadhus) and/or commoners which is annually drawn with
increasing rush from Hindu populace of India defining and
exhibiting perpetually binding and unifying Sanatan Spirit
of India.
06. The claim of the petitioner-BBCT that it has been
holding and setting up of langar for the last 28 years admits
of no contradiction given the fact that the petitioner gains no
privilege by setting up a spurious claim. The genuineness
and confirmation of said claim of the petitioner is accredited
from the record of this case itself that at least from the year
2012 onwards to 2024 the fact of the petitioner’s setting up
the langar on the basis of periodic permissions is gatherable
except for two intervening years of 2020 and 2021 when on
account of Covid-2019, Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra had
remained suspended.
07. The duration of Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra is invariably
spanned for two to three months every year with conclusion
4 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
taking place on the auspicious falling of Shravan Purnima
day.
08. The religious and historical significance of the Yatra
is related to divine phenomenon of formation and emergence
of Shiv Lingam (phallus) representative of deity form of
Bhagwan Shiv every year at the scared site in the Holy Cave
serving as sanctum sanctorum.
09. In order to have the glimpse of the divine presence of
the Deity in its said form, the devotees, generation after
generation, have been doing the pilgrimage which with the
passage of time has kept on increasing which brought the
role of the State in the management of the Yatra for which in
the beginning the Local as well as the State Administration
used to provide measures in facilitating and regulating the
pilgrimage.
10. With the ever growing number of pilgrims visiting
Shri Amarnath Ji Cave, the State Legislature of Jammu &
Kashmir State came up with the Jammu & Kashmir Shri
Amarnath Ji Shrine Act, 2000 enacted on 14.11.2000 with
an aim and objective to provide for the constitution of a
statutory Board for the better management of Shri
Amarnath Ji Yatra, upgradation of facilities for the whole of
pilgrims and the matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto. The respondent No. 1 is said statutory entity.
5 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
11. A pilgrimage, in the context of Hindu religion to
known and established pilgrimage and religious places is
intertwined with two aspects. One is that of Self and other
one is of Service. Pilgrimage by a person is for self-
spiritualization, whereas selflessly serving the pilgrims by
the Servers is equally a pilgrimage but by Service.
12. The petitioner-BBCT and its membership is engaged
in its Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra/pilgrimage by mode of selfless
service and in that context its members are bearers of
respective fundamental right in the context of article 25 in
Part III of the Constitution of India.
13. In availing of the fundamental right drawn from the
aforesaid article of the Constitution of India, the members of
the petitioner-BBCT, in the name of the petitioner-BBCT,
have been volunteering themselves in terms of their
resources, expense and efforts to mobilize and transport
men and material for the purpose of stationing a langar at
Panchtarni enroute to Shri Amarnath Ji Holy Cave so as to
provide free food/eatables and resting space for the pilgrims
taking pedestrian Yatra onwards the last Station upto which
arrival is by use of vehicles. One has to take said pilgrimage
of Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra to realize the physical hardship
and endurance overcome by the pilgrims enroute and this is
where organizations like that of petitioner-BBCT volunteer
6 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
their presence and potential to provide succor to the
pilgrims both in terms of food and rest.
14. The protocol/regime which the respondent No. 1 has
been following in the matter of setting up of langars is that
the respondent No. 1’s establishment would issue and
address an individual Expression of Interest (EoI) to the
willing Organizations equipped with certified status,
credentials and wherewithal in response where to the
addressed Organizations would come forward submitting
their respective willingness to set up the langar facilities
enroute Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra and, accordingly, earn a
written permission with the terms and conditions stipulated
therein on the basis whereof the permitted langar facility
gets set up to carry out its role of service to the pilgrims.
15. Thus, in a sense, it is just a space- providing which
is principally done by the respondent No. 1 at the different
locations enroute Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra for a particular
langar organization whereat it is the permitted langar
organization which comes in its role of service provider of
food and eatables free of charge to the pilgrims.
16. From the year 2012 till 2024, minus two years 2020
and 2021 of Covid-2019, the petitioner-BBCT on the basis of
its proven credentials used to be addressed with an
Expression of Interest (EoI) from the respondent No. 1’s end
7 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
and consequently earn permission letter for setting up of its
langar facility at Panchtarni which is an earmarked stop-
over station of the pilgrims marching from base camps at
Pahalgam to Shri Amarnath Ji Cave.
17. For Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra of 2025, the petitioner-
BBCT was taken by surprise in not receiving much awaited
and expected an Expression of Interest (EoI) from the
respondent No. 1’s end although similarly situated and
serving organizations like the petitioner-BBCT regularly
setting up langars facility had come to receive timely
Expression of Interest (EoI) to register the consent so as to
earn the permission letter for this year yatra.
18. The petitioner, by virtue of a communication dated
18.02.2025 (annexure-IX, Paper-book page No.139)
addressed a request to the respondent No. 3- Additional
Chief Executing Officer of the respondent No. 1 thereby
seeking an attention and indulgence in the matter of
grievance in non-issuance of Expression of Interest (EoI) to
the petitioner-BBCT and the reasons for out-casting the
petitioner-BBCT from being one of the beneficiaries of
invitation from the respondent No. 1’s end for setting up of
langar facility similarly placed with last year invitees. The
request was submitted by the petitioner-BBCT through e-
mail mode as well.
8 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
19. Finding no immediate response from the end of the
respondent No. 3 -Additional Chief Executing Officer of the
respondent No. 1 and the time being of essence in the
context of seeking requisite permission, the petitioner
rushed to address an e-mail dated 22.03.2025 to Shri Manoj
Sinha, the Lieutenant Governor, UT of Jammu & Kashmir as
being ex-officio Chairman of the respondent No. 1 thereby
soliciting his consideration in facilitating issuance of
Expression of Interest (EoI) to the petitioner-BBCT which
also evoked no response.
20. The petitioner-BBCT had addressed its concern to
the attention of Shri Manoj Sinha, Lieutenant Governor, UT
of Jammu & Kashmir both in terms of e-mail as well as
regular mode representation submission which is coming
forth from Paper-book page Nos. 133, 134, 136/137.
21. In a desperate effort to earn issuance of an
Expression of Interest (EoI) from the respondent No. 1’s end,
the petitioner addressed a detailed representation dated
01.05.2025 to Shri Manoj Sinha, the Lieutenant Governor of
UT of Jammu & Kashmir without comfort of any response
coming on its way thereby making the petitioner-BBCT to
suffer an understanding that it has been singled out without
any rhyme or reason by the respondent No. 1’s
establishment to be denied an opportunity of setting up of a
langar facility at Panchtarni for the current year-2025 Shri
9 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
Amarnath Ji Yatra and that led to the institution of the
present writ petition on 08.05.2025 thereby seeking the
following reliefs:-
A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to
forthwith issue the Officer Inviting Letter/
Expression of Interest (EOI) and necessary
permission in favour of the Petitioner Trust for
rendering Bhandara services at Panchtarni during
Shri AmarnathJi Yatra 2025: AND;
B. That the Respondents may kindly be directed to take
a decision after granting a proper opportunity to the
Petitioner Trust to plead its case and affording a
personal hearing in the interest of natural justice
and communicate their decision to the Petitioner
Trust regarding the issuance of the Offer Inviting
Letter (EOI) and the Permission Letter within one
week; and in the event of any adverse decision, a
reasoned and speaking order may kindly be passed:
and if the Petitioner Trust succeeds in obtaining the
Permission Letter, the same site at Panchtarni,
where it has been consistently establishing its
Bhandara for the last many years may kindly be
allotted to it; AND;
C. That during the pendency of this case, the
Respondents may kindly be directed not to allot the
Bhandara site of the Petitioner Trust at Panchtarni
to any other Langar organization.
22. This Court, on the very first admission hearing of
the writ petition, by appreciated the fact that the petitioner-
BBCT on the basis of its conduct in carrying out the langar
10 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
facility for the last year of Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2024 had
suffered no disqualification or disability and instead had
earned requisite NOC dated 13.08.2024 from the Camp
Director of the respondent No. 1 – Panchtarni (paper-book
page No. 121) as being an essential component of next year
issuance of Expression of Interest (EoI) to a particular langar
organization in being invited for setting up langar for the
Yatra and also for issuance of permission.
23. This Court passed an order dated 14.05.2025
thereby invoking the indulgence of the respondent No. 2 –
Chief Executive Officer of the respondent No. 1 to consider
the pending request of the petitioner-BBCT for grant of
Expression of Interest (EoI) for the langar facility for the Shri
Amarnath Ji Yatra – 2025 in due regard to the fact that the
petitioner-BBCT in terms of last year-2024 setting up of
langar facility had suffered no disqualification/disability.
24. The petitioner-BBCT in its representation as well as
in the present writ petition referred to its exclusion as being
a targeted one emanating as a matter of retribution from the
bureaucratic set up of the respondent No. 1 aimed against
the petitioner-BBCT for an act on the part of the petitioner-
BBCT in raising concern with respect to the functioning of
the bureaucratic establishment of the respondent No. 1 in
the matter of conduct of Yatra.
11 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
25. Thus, Article 14 of the Constitution of India has
come to be invoked by the petitioner-BBCT in writ petition to
seek judicial review jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to call upon the respondents
to allow to the petitioner-BBCT to set up langar facility at
Panchtarni for this year Yatra.
26. In the writ petition, it has been pleaded that more
than 110 Langar Organizations(LOs) came to be issued
Expression of Interest (EoI) by the end of January, 2025
which were last year-2024 invited and permitted Langar
Organizations and further 10 to 12 new langar organizations
being invited by the Expression of Interest (EoI) issued in
April, 2025, but deleting the petitioner-BBCT out of
reckoning that too without any statement of reason coming
forth from the end of the respondents which has been
reckoned by the petitioner-BBCT to be nothing but sheer
display and exploit of ipse-dixit on the part of the
respondents No. 2 to 4 and, thus, an arbitrary and unfair
treatment and discrimination meted out to the petitioner-
BBCT from the end of the respondents to render the same
questionable by reference to Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
27. The petitioner in its writ petition has positioned the
respondent No. 1 to be discharging public functions from its
12 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
statutory/public body status and, thus, amenable to writ
jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
28. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has
annexed the documents on the basis of which the averments
made in the writ petition are drawing support and reference
in setting up a case of violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India at the end of the respondents by acts
of omission or commission at their respective ends thereby
leaving the petitioner deprived and denied of its legitimate
claim of setting up langar at the identified place in
continuation of its past engagements for the purpose.
29. The respondents from their end have come forward
with Preliminary Objections, Preliminary Facts and Para-
wise Reply format of reply to the writ petition.
30. In their reply under the heading Preliminary
Objections, the respondents submit that the writ petition
in its present form is utterly misconceived both in law
and on facts and is not maintainable under article 226
of the Constitution of India.
31. It is submitted by the respondents that
communication of an Expression of Interest (EoI) from the
respondent No. 1’s end to the NGOs engaged in langar
services is only an invitation/offer without creating any
corresponding legal obligation or contract and is, therefore,
13 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
purely discretionary and not enforceable through writ
jurisdiction. It is asserted that no one can demand or accept
as a matter of right issuance of an Expression of Interest
(EoI).
32. It is admitted by the respondents in the Preliminary
Objections that there is no statutory provision, rule of
notification that makes it mandatory for the respondent No.
1 to issue an Expression of Interest (EoI) to any individual or
trust, as such, no legal cause accrues to the petitioner and
correspondingly no legal duty resting upon the respondents
with respect to which a writ of mandamus can be solicited
and be issued.
33. The statutory background of the respondent No. 1
is highlighted in the Preliminary Objections in furtherance
whereof it is being submitted that there are certain terms
and conditions laid out at the end of the respondent No. 1
operating during the Yatra with respect to langar services for
the pilgrims which are meant for Langar Operators/NGOs to
adhere to.
34. Under the Preliminary Facts, the respondents come
forward bearing reference to sections 13 & 16 of the Jammu
& Kashmir Shri Amarnath Ji Shrine Act, 2000.
35. The respondents in their objections have laid
emphasis on the terms and conditions which used to attend
14 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
issuance of Expression of Interest (EoI) and consequent
permission letter/s to the beneficiary Langar Organization/s
in the matter of setting up of langars at the designated
places and this is by reference to 22nd meeting of Shri
Amarnath Ji Shrine Board (“SASB” in short) of 2012
wherefrom onwards the protocol of issuance of Expression of
Interest (EoI) followed by permission letter is said to have
been followed.
36. It is highlighted in the reply by the respondents that
the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in WP(Civil) No. 284 of 2012 titled “Court on its Own
Motion Vs Union of India,” (2013(1) JKJ (HC) 1) relatable
to Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra also provided an incentive for the
respondent No. 1 to formulate terms and conditions
relatable to setting up of langars by Langar Organizations. It
is submitted by the respondents that the terms and
conditions in each passing year have evolved with respect to
regime of setting up of langars.
37. In the Para-Wise reply, the respondents come
forward stating that for the year-2025 Yatra, the petitioner
was not issued Expression of Interest (EoI) as per the
decision and discretion of the answering respondents after
taking into consideration various factors related to safe and
hustle free conduct of Yatra, availability of safer places in
15 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
Yatra area, aspects of crowd management, security and
safety of pilgrims etc.
38. It is stated in the reply that with respect to the
setting up of langar by the petitioner in the year 2024 Yatra,
the issuance of NOC in favour of the petitioner pointed out
an act of omission or commission at its end which was not
appreciated by the respondents at their end.
39. Issuance of Expression of Interest (EoI) from the
respondent No. 1’s end is being pleaded to be the sole
prerogative of the respondent No. 1.
40. With respect to issuance of NOC in favour of the
petitioner with respect to 2024 Yatra which is a sine-qua-non
for the purpose of earning next year Expression of Interest
(EoI) and consequent permission, the respondents have
come forward stating that the no objection certificate (NOC)
has not been issued as satisfactory which disentitled the
petitioner in terms of its clean record.
41. It is in the aforesaid broader factual perspective that
the respondents come forward pleading that the petitioner
has come up with the writ petition bearing a misconceived
cause.
42. Before proceeding further with the actual evaluation
of the matter in issue as to whether the petitioner has been
16 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
subjected to an unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory course
of action without any corresponding decision to said effect
by and at the end of the respondents, this Court first
needs to examine and deal with the plea of the
respondents in Preliminary Objections that the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
not maintainable.
43. The respondents have not elaborated on this
particular above cited aspect as to what is the actual intent
and content in the said preliminary objection which is
meant to be registered by it for this Court to deal with and,
therefore, this Court is caught in a fix as to whether the
respondent No. 1 is meaning and claiming an immunity
from being subjected to judicial review jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the plea that the
respondent No. 2 does not qualify to be an entity falling
within the scope of article 12 of the Constitution of India or
that the matter set up in the writ petition is not justiciable.
44. Now, if the respondents are meaning to say that the
respondent No. 1 cannot be subjected to judicial review
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India at the asking of any one lest that of
petitioner and, therefore, a writ of any kind or for any cause
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
maintainable, the respondents are seriously misplaced in
17 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
their understanding in this context as post judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Zee
Telefilms Ltd. and another Vs Union of India and
others,” 2005 AIR SC 2677 read with the latest judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dileep
Kumar Pandey Vs Union of India and others,” 2025 AIR
Online SC 544 wherein public function test of an Authority,
be it public authority or private authority, statutory or non-
statutory authority, governmental or non-governmental
authority, has been reckoned to be a determining factor to
undertake the judicial review of an action/decision of a
given Authority under judicial review jurisdiction in terms of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is held to be
hedged not by the constraints which otherwise attend the
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 by reference to
Article 12 of the Constitution of India in the matter of
issuance of prerogative writs.
45. The statutory make of the respondent No. 1 would
otherwise per-se render itself to be an Authority under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India whereas otherwise
also it would always continue to be an “Authority” as
referable in the context of reach of article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
46. The reason for this Court to say and hold that the
respondent No. 1 qualifies to be an Authority under Article
18 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
12 of the Constitution of India is that, unlike the Jammu &
Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board constituted
under the Jammu & Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi
Shrine Act, 1988 which has been held not to count as a
State or an Authority within the meaning of article 12 of the
Constitution of India, in terms of judgment in the case of
“Omkar Sharma and others Vs Mata Vaishno Devi shrine
Board and others,” 2005(III) JKJ 388 the respondent No.
1 is distinctly placed in terms of its statutory make under
the Jammu & Kashmir Shri Amarnath Ji Shrine Act, 2000.
47. In terms of the Jammu & Kashmir Shri Amarnath Ji
Shrine Act, 2000 while the Preamble declares that the
statutory constitution of the respondent No. 1 is for the
better management of Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra, upgradation
of facilities for the whole of pilgrims and the matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto, the creation of
statutory Board Fund as defined in section 3(b) of the
Jammu & Kashmir Shri Amarnath Ji Shrine Act, 2000
refers to grant-in-aid to be received from the Govt. of the
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, Govt. of India,
contributions from philanthropic organizations/persons,
non-governmental organizations, any registration fee that
might be required to be paid under rules by the pilgrims
who initiate economic activity enroute and the Chadawa
being the offerings made by the pilgrims.
19 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
48. By this very definition itself of the Board Fund, the
character and status of the respondent No. 1 literally
transcends to be that of an Authority as envisaged under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
relatable to enforcement of fundamental rights and also
other rights which fall within the scope of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is very much a constitutional remedy
available at the disposal of a citizen or an organization
comprising of a citizens complaining of violation of Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
49. Even if the respondent No. 1 is given to argue that it
cannot be held and declared to be an Authority within the
scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India by reference
to essence of “Board Fund” still it being a statutory
authority and surely meant only for performance of public
functions and duties, that too relatable to the fundamental
right drawn from and relatable to Article 25 of the
Constitution of India and also being outsourced with an
element of Police Power of the State in the matter of
regulating the Yatra by grant and denial of permissions of
setting up of langars enroute to Holy Cave, the respondent
No. 1 is rendered fully amenable to an accountability and
answerability under Article 12 of the Constitution of India
for its public and citizen affecting actions/decisions.
20 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
50. Thus, with clarity in mind about the statutory and
legal status of the respondent No. 1 rendering it answerable
in the present writ petition to the purported grievance of the
petitioner, this Court examines as to whether the petitioner
has been subjected to an unfair, arbitrary and
discriminatory treatment that too without any supporting
decision from the end of the respondents, in particular the
respondents No. 2 to 4, who being the functionaries and
administrators of the respondent No.1.
51. From the very tone and tenor of the reply/objections
to the writ petition, the respondents are meaning to arrogate
themselves as if the matter of grant or non-grant of
permission for Langar Organization is a personal fiefdom of
the respondents No. 2 to 4. This fact is gatherable from the
very averments made in Para (V) under Preliminary
Objections where they are meaning to say that an
Expression of Interest (EoI) is only an invitation/offer
without creating any corresponding legal obligation or
contract and is purely discretionary and not enforceable
through writ jurisdiction.
52. The respondents in their reply have not asserted or
meant to assert that langar organizations are dispensable
part of the pilgrimage in the matter of providing food and
eatables to the pilgrims for the simple reason that the
respondent No. 1 itself does not cater to said services in
21 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
favour of the pilgrims and, therefore, the only
medium/urgency through which the pilgrims are able to
have their daily food service is through langar organizations
volunteering their free service.
53. Obviously, the discretion is being a self proclaimed
and defined discretion of the respondents No. 2 to 4 under a
misplaced assumption and assurance that Article 14 of the
Constitution of India does not bind the respondent No. 1
and its functionaries and that they are an exception to the
mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which is
otherwise that of acting fairly and free from any
arbitrariness in the matter of decision making bearing civil
consequences as well as effects which in the present case is
that of depriving the petitioner and its members from
exercising their fundamental right drawn from Article 25 of
the Constitution of India in setting up of langar.
54. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
“Ivy C.da.Conceicao Vs State of Goa and others,” 2017
AIR(SC) 1834 came to examine the validity of an action/
decision making of a minority educational institution in the
selection process in the appointment of its Principal from its
faculty of teachers. In para 11, it has came to be observed
that it can hardly be disputed that power of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available to
go into the question whether action of an aided educational
22 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
institution (even a minority institution) is transparent and
fair and further holding in paras 14 & 15 that autonomy of a
minority institution does not dispense with the requirement
to act fairly and in a transparent manner with respect to
which the High Court in exercise of its power of judical
review is entitled to examine fairness of selection process
and that grievance of a citizen that he was treated unfairly
cannot be ignored on the ground that a minority institution
has autonomy or right of choice. Exercise of right of choice
has to be fair, non-discriminatory and rational.
55. The case and grievance of the petitioner and of its
members is exactly the same as are the words of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India “Exercise of right of choice has to
be fair, non-discriminatory and rational,” which in the
present case is relatable to the respondent No. 1 that its
right of choice and selection of langar organizations in
excluding the petitioner from becoming this year beneficiary
of invitation to participate and earning permission to set up
langar is an arbitrary and in opaque manner derived.
56. This Court was given to understand by Mr. Mohsin
Qadri, learned Sr. Advocate arguing on behalf of the
respondents that because of the security scenario post-
Pahalgam incident, the respondent No. 1 came to tapper
down the list of Langar Organizations to be invited for
setting up of langars for 2025 Yatra.
23 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
57. This assertion of learned senior counsel arguing for
the respondents got fact checked when this court solicited
an affidavit from the end of the respondents as to how many
last year Langar Organizations came to be repeated with
earning of an Expression of Interest (EoI) and how many
new Langar Organizations came to be invited.
58. The affidavit which has come forth from the
respondents’ end states that for this year Shri Amarnath Ji
Yatra, 122 Langar Organizations have been permitted by the
respondent No. 1 which is the same number as was for the
last year Yatra of 2024. This affidavit further discloses that
out of 120 last year Langar Organizations, 113 Langar
Organizations have been permitted and repeated to set up
langars for this year Yatra and nine(9) new Langar
Organizations have been invited and permitted for setting up
of langars for this year-2025.
59. Out of last year-2024 Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra, nine
(9) Langar Organizations have been ousted which of course
includes the petitioner as well, but since the petitioner has
come forward to challenge its exclusion that is why this writ
petition is bearing its adjudication as to whether this
exclusion is fair and transparent or is just born out of an
ipse-dixit of the respondents to which this Court has no
hesitation to hold that it is born out of exercise of personal
pick and choose policy of the respondents in the face of the
24 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
fact that the petitioner suffered no disqualification on
account of its last year-2024 langar set up and service and
that proof is coming forth from No Objection Certificate
(NOC) issued in its favour.
60. Otherwise also, the respondents, at no point of time
ever extended the courtesy of apprising the petitioner
despite having approached them with the timely
representations and e-mails as to this time what for it was
not being favoured with issuance of an Expression of
Interest (EoI) lest issuance of permission letter.
61. It is only in the reply/objections that the
respondents, finding themselves caught on a wrong foot,
have come up conjuring a fault theory against the petitioner
which does not cut ice with the reason and, therefore, this
Court rejects the said stand of the respondents and holds
that the petitioner has been victimized arbitrarily at the
hands of the respondents who instead being guided and
governed by a policy and principle are being led by personal
preferences and picks.
62. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and appraisal thereof warrants the writ
petition to be allowed and, accordingly, the respondents in
general and the respondent No. 1 in particular is hereby
directed to immediately entertain the pending request of the
25 WP(C) No. 1185/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1886
petitioner-Bhole Bhandari Charitable Trust for being
accorded with permission to set up langar at Panchtarni for
this year Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2025’s remainder of days,
notwithstanding only number of days now left relatable to
Yatra, so as to vindicate the fundamental and constitutional
right of the petitioner and its members that in the matter of
serving the Divine and the Devotees, the cause and call of
Justice has not failed the petitioner and its members.
63. Needful compliance be done within a period of one
week from today.
64. Disposed of.
(Rahul Bharti)
Judge
Jammu
22.07.2025
Muneesh
Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: : Yes
