Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Director Local Bodies And Others vs Harbans Singh on 9 December, 2021
Serial No. 02
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CONC No. 121/2012
In CSA No. 15/2012
IA No. 19/2012
Director Local Bodies and others
...Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG
v/s
Harbans Singh ...Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. G.S. Thakur, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
CONC No. 121/2012
1. Through the medium of the instant application, delay of 111 days
is sought to be condoned by the applicants.
2. The judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 is being assailed in the
appeal which after having been received by the applicants-appellants is
stated to have been examined and referred to applicant No. 1 herein on
15.12.2011 whereafter the applicant No. 1 is stated to have referred the
matter to the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban
Development Department, J&K, vide letter dated 09.01.2012 for conveying
instruction with regard to the filing of the appeal.
3. It is being stated that the Housing and Urban Development
Department after examining the matter sought grant of sanction for filing of
the appeal from the Law Department whereafter a sanction is stated to have
been granted on 16.02.2012 by the Law Department.
4. It is being stated that after obtaining sanction from the Law
Department, the matter had been referred to the Additional Advocate
General for preparing and filing of an appeal whereafter the appeal is filed
on 18.04.2012.
5. It is being stated that the delay caused in filing the appeal has been
neither deliberate nor intentional, but on account of fulfillment of
administrative formalities.
6. Mr. S.S. Nanda, appearing counsel for the applicant would
reiterate the contentions raised in the application and prays for condonation
of delay in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Objections have not been filed to the application. However,
appearing counsel for the non-applicant Mr. G.S. Thakur would contend that
the application is misconceived and the explanation spelt out in the
application is not sufficient which would warrant condonation of delay.
8. Perusal of the record in general and of the application
accompanied and supported by an affidavit would prima-facie demonstrate
that the explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay is
plausible, cogent and sufficient.
9. The reasons detailed out in the application seeking condonation of
delay, seemingly are convincing.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid position, application is allowed and
the delay is condoned.
11. Application is disposed of.
CSA No. 15/2012
12. Notice returnable within two weeks. Steps within one week.
13. At this stage, Mr. G.S. Thakur, Advocate, present in Court waives
notice on behalf of the respondent.
14. List for consideration on 11.02.2022.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
Jammu
09.12.2021
SUNIL-I
