Dr. Tanveer Aziz And Another vs State Of J&K And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 616 j&K/2

                                                               Case No. 261
                                                              (Suppl 1 Cause List)
                                                                      After Notice



                 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
                           AT SRINAGAR
                      (Through Video Conference)

                                                CONSW No. 111/2016

Dr. Tanveer Aziz and another                       .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                       Through: Mr. A. M. Dar, Advocate
                                Mr. M.Y. Lone, Advocate.

                 Vs

State of J&K and others                                      ..... Respondent(s)

                       Through: Mr. Azhar Ul Amin, Advocate.
                                Mr. Shaqir Haqani, Advocate.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

02.06.2021

(Open Court)

01. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 217 days in

preferring the present review petition. Briefly stated the material facts are as

under:

02. Writ petition bearing SWP No. 305/2010 came to be dismissed by a

coordinate bench of this court vide judgment and order dated 29.7.2015. The

applicants preferred a Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 198 of 2015,

which came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 8.10.2015 with

liberty to the petitioners to file a review if any ground was made out. Having

obtained the liberty, the present review petition has been filed along with an

application for condonation of delay. There has been a delay of 217 days in

preferring the present review petition.

03. The explanation rendered in the application for seeking condonation

of delay firstly, is that the review petition could not also be filed earlier due to

flash floods in which the entire records of the petition were destroyed and that it

took time for the petitioners to reconstruct the file and secondly, that the counsel

for the petitioners was most of the times out of the station.

04. Counsel for the respondents, M/s Azhar Ul Amin and Haqani, on the

other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay on the

premise that the grounds mentioned in the application were totally unconvincing

besides being incorrect factually.

05. It was urged that the assertion with regard to flash floods was also

incorrect inasmuch as Kashmir valley had experienced floods not in the year

2015 but in the year 2014 and that the petitioners despite the floods had pursued

the case before the writ court and also filed the LPA as late as in the year 2015,

and therefore, the excuse of floods was projected only with a view to somehow

seek the condonation of delay even when the said ground was not actually

available to the applicants. The second ground, it was urged, was also without

any cogent basis inasmuch as the applicants had vaguely stated that the counsel

for the applicants was mostly out of the station. It was stated that the absence of

the counsel pursuing the case of the applicants could not have, in the normal

course, prevented the applicants from making alternate arrangements especially

when the applicants do not claim that they belong to a state of society, which

was ignorant about the manner in which the court cases were to be conducted.

06. Having heard counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the applicants

have failed to make out a good case for condoning the delay of 217 days.

07. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant application for

condonation of delay is found to be without any merit and is accordingly

dismissed.

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar 02.06.2021 Naresh

NARESH KUMAR 2021.06.09 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document