8 vs State Of Jk & Ors

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1732 J&K/2
Judgement Date : 30 March, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

8 vs State Of Jk & Ors on 30 March, 2026

Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
                                                                 08
                                                                 Regular
                                                                               2021:JKLHC-SGR:8549



            HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                            AT SRINAGAR
                         CM(1412/2026) in SWP 1566/2016
                                CM(1413/2026).

         Manzoor Ahmad Sheikh & Ors.
                                                        ...Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
               Through:       Ms. Saima Mehboob, Advocate.

                                           VERSUS

         State Of JK & Ors.
                                                                     ...Respondent(s)
               Through:       Mr. Jahingeer Ahmad Dar, Government Advocate vice
                              Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, Government Advocate.


CORAM:
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
                                      ORDER

30.03.2026

01. Writ petition- SWP No. 1566/2016 came to be preferred by eleven petitioners. Filing of said writ petition had taken place without availing services of an advocate and that is the reason that the presentation of the writ petition mentions that it was presented by the petitioners themselves on 05.10.2016.

02. Later on, Advocate Ms. Saima Mehboob came to file her Power of Attorney on 08.12.2016 to represent the eleven petitioners.

03. In terms of an order dated 06.10.2016, in response to Miscellaneous Application- MP 01/2016, this Court had directed that the present status of the petitioners to remain undisturbed.

04. During course of its pendency, the matter was referred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar wherefrom it came to be reverted in terms of an order dated 03.08.2022 so as to be taken again on docket of this Court by its original number- SWP No. 1566/2016.

05. In said writ petition, response from the respondents' end2021:JKLHC-SGR:8549 was awaited. Reply on behalf of the respondent No. 4 came to be filed as is reflected in the order dated 18.11.2023 whereas response from the end of the respondents No. 1 to 3 was awaited with a caveat that default in filing the reply by the next date was to result in closure of the right to file the reply.

06. In terms of an order dated 24.05.2024, the right to file reply on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 came to be closed.

07. In terms of an order dated 12.11.2024, this Court had called upon Mr. Syed Musaib, learned Deputy Advocate General to confirm the fact as to whether the petitioners were still in state of service with Municipal Committee, Sumbal or not and also whether the petitioners had been employed in any other Municipal Committee and for that purpose Director, Urbal Local Bodies Kashmir was directed to submit an affidavit to said extent.

08. It appears that said direction of this Court had gone begging compliance from the end of the Director, Urban Local Bodies Kashmir.

09. Amidst said state of proceedings, the case came to suffer dismissal for non-prosecution in terms of an order dated 01.12.2025 for seeking restoration of which eleven petitioners have come forward again through Advocate Ms Saima Mehboob who has cited her personal medical condition as a reason for non-appearance.

10. Restoration application- CM No. 1413/2026 is accompanied with a condonation of delay application- CM No. 1412/2026.

11. For the reasons set out in both the applications relatable to the medical condition of the counsel for the petitioners, this Court allows both the applications and restores the writ petition back to its original number but without reviving the interim direction as 2021:JKLHC-SGR:8549 obtaining in order dated 06.10.2016

12. It appears that the scanning of order dated 12.11.2024 suffered omission and that is the reason that the digital file does not bear stamp order dated 12.11.2024, whereas the scanning section "Scanned Digitization Section" is said to have done the needful on 13.11.2024.

13. Surely, there is a serious lapse on the part of the Registry in carrying out due diligence in the matter for which the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar is directed to get the matter looked into and fix the responsibility.

14. This Court directs the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar to ensure that the order dated 12.11.2024 is duly scanned to become part of the digital file as well.

15. On the next date of hearing, Director, Urban Local Bodies, Kashmir is directed to remain present in person in case requisite affidavit is not filed from his end.

16. List on 15th April, 2025.

17. A copy of this order be provided by the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar to Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, learned Government Advocate for the sake of notice and compliance at the end of the Director, Urban Local Bodies Kashmir.

(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 30.03.2026 Bisma Jan.