{"id":15338,"date":"2009-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-08-16T04:56:07","modified_gmt":"2016-08-15T23:26:07","slug":"haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR At SRINAGAR             \nLPA No. 261 of 2007 \nHaji Mohammad Ishaq   \n   Haji Tahir Hussain &amp; ors\n   petitioner\nState of J&amp;K &amp; ors.\n respondents    \n!Mr. M. A. Qayoom, Advocate  \n  Mr. G. A. Lone, Advocate\n^ Mr. Hashim Hussain, Dy. AG  \n   Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Advocate\n   Mr. G. N. Shaheen, Advocate\n\nHon'ble Mr. Justice Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice\nHon'ble Mr. Justice M. Yaqoob Mir, Judge\nDate: 16\/03\/2009 \n: J U D G M E N T:\n<\/pre>\n<p>          Per Barim Ghosh, CJ (Oral)<br \/>\n        Villagers of certain villages situated within the district of Kargil<br \/>\nrepresented for creation of<br \/>\na new block to bring those villages within the said new block. They represented<br \/>\nthat the block in<br \/>\nwhich they have been clubbed is inconvenient for them, for, they have to travel<br \/>\na<br \/>\n2 long distance to reach to the block headquarter where they are required to<br \/>\ndischarge many a<br \/>\nduties and functions in connection with the lands held by them in the villages.<br \/>\nThis representation<br \/>\nwas being considered by the political executive when the location of the<br \/>\nproposed headquarters of<br \/>\nthe new block, if sanctioned to be created, was also being considered.<br \/>\nUltimately, a political<br \/>\ndecision was taken to grant to the villagers of those villages a new block. The<br \/>\nsaid decision was<br \/>\ncommunicated by a Government decision dated July 6, 2005 when it was stated that<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nheadquarters of the said newly constituted block shall be at Rahimthang.<br \/>\nIn the writ petition field by three petitioners in their personal capacity, they<br \/>\ncontended that the<br \/>\nexecutive decision of fixing the headquarter of the new block, flowing from the<br \/>\npolitical decision to<br \/>\ncreate the said new block, was erroneous, improper, arbitrary and capricious,<br \/>\ninasmuch as<br \/>\nRahimthang as the headquarters for the new block is not only inconvenient for<br \/>\nthe villagers, but the<br \/>\ndecision to select Rahimthang as the headquarters of the said new block is also<br \/>\ncontrary to the<br \/>\nconscious decision of the State to locate all the State facilities in the<br \/>\nvillage of Trespoon where not<br \/>\nonly the hospital is situate but also the sheep breeding farm has come up<br \/>\nalongwith post office and<br \/>\nother facilities. It was stated that village Trespoon was<br \/>\n3 selected for all those facilities in view of the fact that the said village<br \/>\nhas become a halqa<br \/>\nPanchayat which suggests that a large number of<br \/>\nPeople are residing at the said village. It was suggested that there is no just<br \/>\nreason why ignoring<br \/>\nTrespoon, Rahimthang was chosen. In the counter affidavit filed by the State,<br \/>\nwhile opposing the<br \/>\nwrit petition, it almost took a stand that the choice of Rahimthang having been<br \/>\nmade by the<br \/>\nexecutive, the same is not interfereable and not, at least, at the instance of<br \/>\nthe writ petitioners. In<br \/>\nother words, they contended that whatever they had done is beyond question and<br \/>\nin particular by<br \/>\nthe petitioners. The private respondents, who were parties to the writ petition<br \/>\ncontended that taking<br \/>\ninto consideration the reasons as were then taken note of, it was decided to<br \/>\nhave the headquarters of<br \/>\nthe new block at Rahimthang. While the writ petition was pending, a corrigendum<br \/>\nwas issued on<br \/>\nJuly 22, 2005 replacing the words &#8220;HQ. Rahimthang&#8221; to &#8220;HQ. Rahimthang-<br \/>\nMarpothang&#8221; in the<br \/>\noriginal notification dated July 6, 2005. On May 19, 2006 on the writ petition,<br \/>\nan order of status<br \/>\nquo was passed. Soon thereafter, by an order dated July 10, 2006, the said<br \/>\ncorrigendum was<br \/>\ncancelled. The above actions led to filing of a fresh writ petition by the<br \/>\npetitioners challenging the<br \/>\ncorrigendum as well as the rescission thereof. In that writ petition, they added<br \/>\none more private<br \/>\nrespondent who was then a Minister of<br \/>\n4the State. It was contended that it was at his instance Rahimthang was decided.<br \/>\nThey also filed a<br \/>\ncontempt petition, contending that the order of status quo has been breached by<br \/>\nissuing the order<br \/>\nrescinding the corrigendum.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petitions, dismissed the same<br \/>\nand also disposed<br \/>\nof the contempt petition, principally, on the ground that the bases for fixing<br \/>\nheadquarter is based on<br \/>\nconsideration of executive requirement and, accordingly, executive exigency and<br \/>\npreference<br \/>\noutweighs anything else. While doing so, the learned Judge took notice of the<br \/>\njudgment of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court rendered in the case  of Union of India v. Kannadapara<br \/>\nSanghatanegala<br \/>\nOkkuta &amp; Kannadigara, 2002(10) SCC 226. The learned Judge also took note of a<br \/>\njudgment of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Delhi Science Forum v. Union of<br \/>\nIndia, 1996 (2)<br \/>\nSCC 405. While the later case dealt with policy decision, with which we are not<br \/>\nconcerned here<br \/>\ninasmuch as fixation of headquarter in no certain terms can be said to be a<br \/>\npolitical decision or a<br \/>\npolicy decision, but the first mentioned case of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court may<br \/>\napply. At the same<br \/>\ntime, however, the same applies to headquarters of a venture with which public<br \/>\nas such has no<br \/>\ndirect   or   indirect   interaction. In   other   words, when   the<br \/>\n5headquarter of an organization with which the people have generally no scope of<br \/>\ninteraction, and<br \/>\nis purely for meeting the requirement of administration, i.e., headquarter of a<br \/>\nrailway, is to be set<br \/>\nup, the decision of the organization alone to locate the same should be taken<br \/>\nnote of and, in that<br \/>\nconnection, that decision itself will hold, for, it is the convenience of the<br \/>\norganization alone that is<br \/>\nto be taken note of. However, when the headquarter of a block is to be located,<br \/>\nwhere the people<br \/>\nwill interact and will be interacted, the decision to locate the same must be<br \/>\ntaken in the backdrop of<br \/>\nconvenience of the people also for whose benefit the political decision to<br \/>\ncreate a new block has<br \/>\nbeen taken. The executive, while implementing such a political decision, cannot<br \/>\nescape by saying<br \/>\nthat it has taken the decision. It would be required to show that, in the facts<br \/>\nand circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case, the decision taken was a reasonable decision.<br \/>\nIt is well settled in law that the writ Court does not deal with the decision<br \/>\nrendered by an inferior<br \/>\nauthority. The writ Court also does not sit in appeal on a decision rendered by<br \/>\nan inferior authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>The writ Court is only to see whether the decision making process adopted was<br \/>\nfair and reasonable.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the instant case, the process to select Rahimthang as the headquarter of the<br \/>\nnew block has not<br \/>\ncome on record. No record suggesting that there had been an application of<br \/>\n6mind to ascertain public convenience or inconvenience was produced before the<br \/>\nwrit Court. This<br \/>\nCourt gave an opportunity to produce the same. The records have been produced<br \/>\nbut they do not<br \/>\ncontain anything from where it can be gathered that any effort had been made,<br \/>\nwhile fixing the<br \/>\nheadquarter of the new block at Rahimthang, to ascertain public convenience and<br \/>\ninconvenience.\n<\/p>\n<p>The conclusion, therefore, would be that the decision making process of<br \/>\nselecting Rahimthang as<br \/>\nthe headquarter of the new block was so faulty that the decision rendered by<br \/>\nadopting such<br \/>\nprocedure is vitiated as an illegal exercise of power and authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Learned counsel for the State submitted that the writ petitions, at the<br \/>\ninstance of three<br \/>\npetitioners not residing in the village Rahimthang, are not maintainable. He<br \/>\nsubmitted that the writ<br \/>\npetitions were not representative actions, and, accordingly, people of the new<br \/>\nblock were not<br \/>\ninterested in the manner interest had been shown by the petitioners. It was<br \/>\nsubmitted that in the<br \/>\nevent the grievance of the petitioners are to be taken note of, then in future<br \/>\npeople residing in other<br \/>\nvillages, where also the headquarter has not been set up, would come and express<br \/>\ntheir grievance.\n<\/p>\n<p>The political decision to give a new block has been taken to benefit each and<br \/>\nevery resident of<br \/>\nthose villages which have been clubbed together under the said block. The<br \/>\n7said decision is for the benefit of each of such villagers. Each of them has<br \/>\nequal right of being<br \/>\ntreated fairly. Each of them has a right to contend that he has not been fairly<br \/>\ntreated in the matter of<br \/>\nselecting the headquarter. It is such right the petitioners have invoked in the<br \/>\nsaid writ petitions. It<br \/>\ncannot be said that as individuals they do not have any right to approach the<br \/>\nCourt and they were<br \/>\nrequired to approach the Court only as representatives of other villagers<br \/>\nresiding in the locality.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The answer which the petitioners expect from the State would have been the<br \/>\nanswer to any<br \/>\nother person as that of the petitioners challenging or questioning the decision<br \/>\nto have the<br \/>\nheadquarter of the new block at Rahimthang. The answer in all such cases would<br \/>\nhave been<br \/>\nestablishment on facts that an effort was made to ascertain public element in<br \/>\nchoosing the site of<br \/>\nthe headquarter. That being absent in the instant case, in all other cases that<br \/>\nmay come in future, the<br \/>\nState will face the same fate.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Learned counsel for the private respondents, namely, villagers who reside<br \/>\nin the village<br \/>\nRahimthang, submitted that at the time proposal was made for  carving out a new<br \/>\nblock for the<br \/>\nvillages in question, considering the situation of Rahimthang, it was decided<br \/>\nthat Rahimthang<br \/>\nwould   be   the    best    located   place   for   having  the<br \/>\n8 headquarter of the new block. It is true that in a letter it was so indicated,<br \/>\nbut while doing so,<br \/>\nsurprisingly, one of the halqa panchayats, which formed part of the new block,<br \/>\nhad been totally left<br \/>\nout. The said state of affair clearly demonstrates that while writing the said<br \/>\nletter, the manner in<br \/>\nwhich the said officer, i.e., the writer thereof, was obliged to discharge his<br \/>\nduties owing to the<br \/>\nvillagers of the said villages, did not discharge the same and, accordingly,<br \/>\nthat letter cannot be said<br \/>\nto be a piece of evidence suggesting that the executive discharged its<br \/>\nobligation in selecting<br \/>\nRahimthang as headquarter of the said block in public interest or by taking into<br \/>\naccount public<br \/>\nelements. It is true that before the decision was taken, a report was submitted<br \/>\nwhere it was stated<br \/>\nthat Rahimthang be the headquarter of the new block to be created, but the fact<br \/>\nremains that the<br \/>\nreport did not suggest why Rahimthang and not any other village shall not be<br \/>\nselected for<br \/>\nestablishing the block headquarters.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The conclusion, therefore, would be that the decision to establish<br \/>\nheadquarter of the new<br \/>\nblock at Rahimthang is a product of caprice based on ipse dixit of the officers<br \/>\nof the State and,<br \/>\ntherefore, cannot stand the test of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Learned counsel for the private respondents cited a Single Bench judgment<br \/>\nrendered in<br \/>\nBijita Saha v. State of Tripura, AIR\n<\/p>\n<p>9. 2006 Guahati 61, for the preposition that the writ Court cannot direct change<br \/>\nof location of a<br \/>\nhospital to be set up by the State. We do not think that the same can be an<br \/>\nabsolute preposition. If<br \/>\non the basis of ipse dixit and mala fide on the part of the officers of the<br \/>\nState, a benefit by way of a<br \/>\nhospital is to be given to the people, but is given to a class of people,<br \/>\nignoring the mass, the writ<br \/>\nCourt will not backtrack from issuing appropriate writs. The other judgment<br \/>\ncited by the said<br \/>\nlearned counsel was rendered in the case of Uttaranchal Training and Employment<br \/>\nKaramchari<br \/>\nSamgharsh Samiti v. State of Urraranchal, reported in AIR 2005 Uttaranchal 58,<br \/>\nfor the<br \/>\npreposition that decision of location of a Government office rests in the<br \/>\nGovernment and the writ<br \/>\nCourt has no jurisdiction to interfere therewith. In that case, the question was<br \/>\nshifting of the<br \/>\nDirectorate of Employment and Training from Haldwani. Though such an office of<br \/>\nthe Government<br \/>\nis established for the benefit of the people but the people have no direct<br \/>\ninteraction therewith;\n<\/p>\n<p>whereas headquarter of a block is established only for the purpose of<br \/>\ninteracting with and by the<br \/>\npeople and not for any other purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the circumstances, these appeals are allowed and the judgment under order and<br \/>\nappeal is set<br \/>\naside. The writ petitions are allowed  but,  at  the  same  time,  no  further<br \/>\nsteps  be  taken  in  the<br \/>\n10contempt petition and the same be deemed to have been closed. The Government<br \/>\nis directed to<br \/>\nascertain, within a period of six months from today, in such manner and mode as<br \/>\nit may deem fit<br \/>\nand proper, which location of the headquarter for the said new block would best<br \/>\nsuit the public<br \/>\npurpose for which the said block has been carved out and thereupon to install,<br \/>\nwithin a period of<br \/>\nfurther six months therefrom, the headquarter of the said block at such<br \/>\nlocation. It   goes  without<br \/>\nsaying, that  within  a period of six months from today, the Government of its<br \/>\nown, would issue<br \/>\nappropriate notification, if necessary, altering the headquarter of the said<br \/>\nblock upon consideration<br \/>\nof what has been directed above. It is made clear that until such time such new<br \/>\nnotification is<br \/>\nissued, it shall be perfectly valid and justified for the Government to operate<br \/>\nthe headquarters for<br \/>\nthe said newly created block at and from where the same is operating at present.\n<\/p>\n<pre>                                (M. Yaqoob Mir)              (Barin Ghosh)\n                                                Judge                           Chief\nJustice\n                        \nSrinagar\n16.03.2009 \nA. H. Khan, JR \n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR At SRINAGAR LPA No. 261 of 2007 Haji Mohammad Ishaq Haji Tahir Hussain &amp; ors petitioner State of J&amp;K &amp; ors. respondents !Mr. M. A. Qayoom, Advocate Mr. G. A. Lone, Advocate ^ [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15338","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-15T23:26:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-15T23:26:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2123,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-15T23:26:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-15T23:26:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-15T23:26:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009"},"wordCount":2123,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009","name":"Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-15T23:26:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haji-mohammad-ishaq-vs-state-of-jk-ors-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Haji Mohammad Ishaq vs State Of J&amp;K &amp; Ors on 16 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15338","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15338"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15338\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15338"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15338"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15338"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}