The Jammu and Kashmir High Court expressed serious concern over a four-year delay in deciding an appeal concerning the recovery of ₹282 crore alleged to have been misutilised under the Himayat Scheme, and highlighted that such prolonged inaction undermines the legal process and affects the accountability of public expenditure. The matter before the Court involved a challenge to an order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Guarantee Act, 2011, which had rejected a writ appeal filed by petitioners against directions issued to them for recovery of the said amount in connection with alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Himayat Scheme. The Himayat Scheme is a central sector programme aimed at providing employment and livelihood support to youth, and the recovery demands in question arose from audit and investigating agency scrutiny that indicated purported financial mismanagement, leading to orders for recovery of funds from various officials, private entities and implementing partners.
The principal grievance raised before the High Court was that the Appellate Authority had taken an inordinate amount of time — over four years — in deciding the petitioners’ appeal, thereby causing prejudice and compounding uncertainty over their legal obligations and personal liabilities. A bench of the High Court noted that the appeal had remained pending without any justified explanation for the delay, and emphasised that such pendency undermines the very purpose of having an appellate forum to swiftly address grievances arising from executive action, especially in matters involving public funds.
During the hearing, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the delay in disposal of the appeal itself was a ground for judicial scrutiny, and that the Court should consider whether the appellate order could be sustained in the absence of timely adjudication. The counsel argued that the petitioners have been left in legal limbo, with the recovery order and the associated financial consequences hanging over them for an unduly prolonged period. It was submitted that the statutory scheme of the Public Service Guarantee Act contemplates timely disposal of appeals, and that failure to adhere to such timelines adversely affects both administrative accountability and the rights of affected persons.
The respondents, comprising the Appellate Authority and Government officials, defended the delay on the ground that the matters involved complex questions of fact and law, and that administrative exigencies, interim proceedings and voluminous records contributed to the extended period taken for adjudication. They urged the Court to consider the substantive merits of the appeal independently of the delay, contending that the recovery orders were justified on the basis of audit findings indicating misutilisation of funds under the Himayat Scheme.
The High Court, while taking note of these submissions, expressed displeasure at the apparent disregard of statutory timelines and the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the protracted pendency. The bench remarked that delay in adjudication, especially when it extends to several years, can itself be seen as a factor weighing against the validity of the appellate order, as it raises questions about procedural fairness and administrative efficiency. The High Court underscored the necessity of timely decision-making in appeals arising under statutory schemes, particularly those affecting public funds and individual liabilities, so as to balance effective oversight with protection of legal rights.
In its analysis, the High Court observed that the appeal pertained to alleged recovery of ₹282 crore, a substantial sum involving public welfare programmes, and that the participants in the appeal had a legitimate expectation that their grievance would be addressed expeditiously. The bench noted that prolonged delay not only causes hardship but may also permit erosion of records, fading of evidence and prejudice to the right of affected persons to fair adjudication. The Court underscored that appeals under statutory frameworks are to be disposed of within reasonable time, and that unexplained delays diminish confidence in administrative and judicial processes established for redressal.
Given these concerns, the High Court flagged the inordinate delay and sought responses from the appellants regarding the reasons for such pendency. The bench also directed that the matter be placed before a designated officer tasked with monitoring compliance with statutory time limits in the Jammu & Kashmir administration, to ensure that future appeals are decided within prescribed or reasonable timelines. The Court’s remarks underscored the principle that justice delayed is justice denied, and that systemic delays — particularly those extending into years — are antithetical to the purpose of statutory appeal mechanisms.
Apart from addressing the delay, the High Court also hinted that the substantive aspects of the recovery orders would require careful scrutiny, including examination of whether the impugned directions for recovery of funds were supported by credible evidence and in accordance with statutory provisions governing the Himayat Scheme. The bench’s remarks indicated that while administrative discretion and audit processes are essential for accountability in public expenditure, they must be exercised with due regard to procedural fairness and timely adjudication.
The Court’s intervention in flagging the delay signals judicial concern for the rights of affected parties as well as the integrity of processes designed to ensure accountability in public programmes. By directing scrutiny of both the pendency and the reasons for delay, and by seeking institutional mechanisms to prevent recurrence, the High Court emphasised the importance of administrative and judicial efficiency in matters involving significant public funds. The bench’s observations aim to reinforce the obligation of authorities to dispose of appeals within reasonable time and ensure that litigants are not left in prolonged uncertainty over recovery proceedings with potentially severe financial and legal consequences.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.