Litigation cannot cause loss to public exchequer: HC

18/10/2026

JAMMU, Oct 17: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition challenging the recovery of Rs. 6.55 lakh in outstanding rent for a canteen at Sub-District Hospital, Dandi Bhaderwah, observing that government authorities cannot be made to suffer financial losses merely because a litigant continued to occupy public property under the protection of an interim court order.
Justice M. A. Chowdhary dismissed the petition filed by Ghulam Hassan, a resident of Puneja in Bhaderwah, challenging a notice issued by the Block Medical Officer (BMO), Bhaderwah, on July 19, 2023, directing him to deposit Rs. 6,55,500 and vacate the canteen premises within two weeks.
The dispute originated in 2013 when the Health Department invited tenders for allotment of the canteen at the newly established hospital. Although Hassan emerged as the highest bidder, his tender was rejected for failure to affix a revenue stamp of Rs. 5 on the document. The authorities subsequently approved another participant's bid of Rs. 51,000.
Aggrieved by the rejection, Hassan approached the High Court in 2013 and obtained an interim order directing maintenance of status quo regarding the premises. The petition was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution on December 23, 2021, after which the authorities initiated proceedings for recovery of outstanding dues and vacation of the canteen.
Challenging the recovery notice, Hassan contended that the canteen had been allotted to his son, Shahid Hussan, in 2012 at a monthly rent of Rs. 300, subject to an annual increase of 10 per cent, and argued that he could not be held personally liable for the amount demanded by the department.
Advocate Nitin Verma appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, assisted by Advocate Jagmeet Kour, represented the government.
The government argued that the petitioner had continued occupying the premises under the protection of the interim order without depositing the amount quoted in his tender bid, resulting in financial loss to the public exchequer.
Examining the record, Justice Chowdhary noted that Hassan had acknowledged in his earlier writ petition that he was running the canteen along with his son and had claimed entitlement to its allotment as the highest bidder.
Rejecting his subsequent attempt to distance himself from the occupation of the premises, the court observed, "It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner now to take a U-turn."
The court noted that the petitioner had continued to retain the canteen for more than a decade while making monthly payments of Rs. 300, despite having quoted an annual tender amount of Rs. 65,500, equivalent to approximately Rs. 5,458 per month.
Justice Chowdhary held that the petitioner could not continue to enjoy the benefit of the earlier rental arrangement at nominal rates while disputing the financial obligations arising from his subsequent tender bid.
The court further observed that the government authorities could not be penalised for being unable to finalise the allotment or initiate fresh tender proceedings because of the litigation instituted by the petitioner.
"The respondents cannot be put to loss and penalized for the simple reason that they could not finalize the allotment," the court observed.
Holding that the authorities were justified in raising the financial liability on the basis of the amount quoted in the 2013 tender, the High Court ruled that the outstanding dues were recoverable in accordance with law.
However, the court directed the authorities to adjust the rent already received through the petitioner's son, Shahid Hussan, against the total liability and recover only the remaining balance.
Finding no merit in the petition, Justice Chowdhary dismissed it along with the accompanying application and vacated the interim direction.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty