Shakeel Ahmad Qureshi v. Union of India and Others (Ministry of Power / Nhpc)

ORDE R

27.02.2026

¶1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶2The case of the petitioner, in nutshell as projected through the medium of the instant petition filed in terms of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that respondent Nos. 2 and 3-National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), during construction of the Uri Power Project acquired a number of properties of the residents of the area. That the land measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas also came to be acquired for the construction of the project. That the respondents-Corporation, in view of the projected norms, assured the residents of providing employment/job to one of the family members whose property came under acquisition. That an assurance certificate came to be issued by the respondents-Corporation in favour of the petitioner. That jobs were given to some of the affected people, but the petitioner stands discriminated and despite his moving from pillar to post, he was not provided the assured job. That the concerned authorities, which include the Deputy Commissioner (DC) Baramulla, Sub-Divisional

Magistrate (SDM) Uri, Tehsildar Uri and Tehsildar Boniyar, have already authenticated his right and claim to the job and the said authorities have recommended him as the most deserving person.

¶3The petitioner has accordingly sought issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to consider his case positively and favourably in light of the recommendations/reports of the District Level Authorities, i.e., Deputy Commissioner (DC) Baramulla, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Uri, Tehsildar Uri and Tehsildar Boniyar, and also in light of his own representations filed from time to time in respect of his claim for a suitable job/employment in lieu of the acquisition of his property and, as a consequence, his displacement therefrom.

¶4Perused the memo of the petition and the copies of documents enclosed with the same as annexures thereto.

¶5In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at this threshold stage by passing of appropriate directions, which are not likely to prejudice the interests of the respondents, but shall otherwise require them to discharge their legal obligations.

¶6Accordingly, the matter is taken up for disposal and is accordingly disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of suitable employment in his favour, in light of the recommendations made by the District Level Authorities, i.e., Deputy Commissioner (DC) Baramulla, Sub-Divisional Magistrate

(SDM) Uri, Tehsildar Uri and Tehsildar Boniyar, as well as the his own representations filed by him from time to time in respect of his claim for a suitable job/employment in lieu of the acquisition of his property and, as a consequence, his displacement therefrom, and to take a reasoned decision thereon strictly in accordance with the applicable rules/policy

within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is made available to them.

¶7Disposed of along with connected miscellaneous application/s.

(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)

JUDGE

SRINAGAR:

27.02.2026 "Mubashir"

Serial No. 122 Supp. List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 377/2026 CM(980/2026) SHAKEEL AHMAD QURESHI …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Ms. Insha Rashid, Advocate Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (MINISTRY OF POWER / NHPC) ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE