District Magistrate Jammu, in compliance to the directions passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the writ petition filed by J&K High Court Bar Association Jammu through its General Secretary A.P. Singh seeking quashment of order No.54 DMJ of 2015 dated August, 1, 2015 whereby District Magistrate Jammu imposed the restrictions under Section 144 Cr.P.C within the Municipal Limits of all Tehsils of Jammu, filed affidavit stating therein that by virtue of order No.63-DMJ of 2015 dated 12-08-2015 the earlier order dated 01-08-2015 is partially modified to the extent that restrictions on the Assembly of people in the District are withdrawn with immediate effect.
The petitioner Association in the writ petition had submitted that the impugned prohibitory order is vindictive, illegal, unconstitutional and actuated with malafide exercise of power. The sole aim of the prohibitory order is to defuse the momentum of the agitation which is receiving mammoth response from the Public of Jammu Province and the District Magistrate Jammu issued the order impugned just to crush the popular movement for establishment of AIIMS in Jammu.It is further averred in the petition that the local police crossed all the limits of decency when it used lathies on the innocent Bar Members including its President. Not only this tear gas shells were used upon the protesting lawyers and other Members of the AIIMS Coordination Committee. Even Police Personnel were caught on camera while damaging the vehicles of the protestors and false/frivolous FIRs were lodged against the senior functionaries of AIIMS Coordination Committee.
It is further averred in the writ petition that Section 144 Cr.P.C. deals with immediate prevention and speedy remedy and before invoking such a provision, the statutory authority must be satisfied regarding the existence of the circumstances showing the necessity of an immediate action. The sine qua non for an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is urgency requiring an immediate and speedy intervention by passing of an order. Such a provision can be used only in grave circumstances for maintenance of public peace. The emergency must be sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave but in the present case there is complete non-application of mind as a bare perusal of the impugned prohibitory order refers to the inputs received by District Magistrate Jammu from SSP, Jammu which are factually incorrect as Police since inception of the agitation has been cruel/brutal to the agitating lawyers and other members of AIIMS Coordination Committee.
The agitation all along has remained peaceful and it is only the Police which used undue force to create law and order problem and the impugned order was issued when there was no such emergent situation as contemplated under Section 144 Cr.P.C.Advocate Pranav Kohli and Advocate Irfaan Mohammad Khan according to CNS requested the Court that the affidavit is factually incorrect and the allegations leveled are required to be rebutted and the said affidavit cannot be treated as a gospel truth. It was submitted that the impugned order is totally in contravention to the mandate of Section 144 Cr.P.C. and also recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court where it has been held that the administrative orders cannot be passed in haste and the satisfaction is mandatory requirement and as such the order being illegal is required to be quashed. On the other hand AAG Vishal Sharma appearing for the State submitted that nothing remains in the petition as the grievances of the petitioner Association stands redressed.Justice Tashi Rabstan of J&K High Court (Jammu Wing) after hearing both the sides granted time to the petitioner Association to file response to the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate and looking into the seriousness of the issue fixed the matter on August, 20, 2015. (CNS)