State Of Jk & Ors vs Mohammad Tawaseen
2021 Latest Caselaw 754 j&K/2

                                                                         Sr. No. 214
                                                                         Advance List
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                                     AT SRINAGAR

                                           LPA No. 89/2021

              State of JK & Ors.                                             ...Petitioner(s)

              Through: Mr. Shah Aamir, AAG

                                                   Vs.
              Mohammad Tawaseen                                             ...Respondent(s)

              Through: Mr. Imtiyaz Sofi, Adv.

              Coram:
                         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                         HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

                                              ORDER

13.07.2021

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24th

November 2016 passed in SWP No. 15/2012. The appeal is reported to

be beyond time by 747 days.

3. In the delay condonation application, it has been stated that the

judgment passed by the writ court was received on 5 th June 2017. The

appellants vide letter dated 23rd September 2017 sought necessary

instructions from the Administrative Department for the purpose of

filing appeal. The permission was granted on 30th January 2018, but

even then, the appeal was filed after about a year on 28th February 2019.

There is no explanation whatsoever for not filing the appeal

immediately after the sanction to file it was accorded except for the fact

that it is vaguely stated that the counsel representing the department had

demitted the office, whereupon, fresh permission was taken which was

MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA 2021.07.15 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and LPA integrity of this No. 89/2021

granted on 19th October 2018. Even after 19th October 2018, the appeal

was not filed promptly.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not at all

convinced by the explanation furnished by the appellants that they were

prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal except on account

of negligence and casual attitude on their part.

5. Accordingly, delay condonation application CDLSW No. 16/2019 is

rejected.

6. Consequently, the LPA No. 89/2021 is dismissed.

                                   (SANJAY DHAR)           (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                          JUDGE              CHIEF JUSTICE
         SRINAGAR
         13.07.2021
         Altaf




MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA
2021.07.15 11:42
I attest to the accuracy and
             LPA
integrity of this    No. 89/2021