Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Cm No. 2676/2022 In Lpa No. 86/2022 vs Government Of J&K & Others on 3 February, 2023
S.No.15
After Notice
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM No. 2676/2022 in LPA No. 86/2022
Vaseem Bari.
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate
V/S
Government of J&K & Others.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. A. R. Malik, Sr. AAG for R2 & R3
Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG for R1, R4, R6 & R7
Mr. Rais Yousuf, Advocate for R8
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE.
ORDER
03.02.2023
CM No. 2676/2022:
1. Through the medium of this application, the applicant-appellant is
seeking condonation of delay in filing the intra-court appeal
against the judgment dated 18.09.2019. It is stated that the
applicant had engaged lawyer and provided him all the details and
documents for preparing the objections to oppose the writ petition
filed by the respondent no. 8. The counsel of the applicant had
assured him that his interest would be taken care of by him and
there was no need of his appearance on each and every date of
hearing. The applicant, as such, was under bonafide belief, that his
interest were being taken care of by his counsel, but to the
astonishment of applicant in the 2nd week of May 2022, he received
a caveat from the counsel of respondent no. 8. It is further stated
that the applicant immediately approached his counsel but he
expressed his inability to assist the applicant. The applicant
thereafter approached the Registry but was not permitted to enter
the premises by the Security Personnel and there only, he came to
know about the Judgment dated 18.09.2019 and applied for the
issuance of certified copy of judgment. It is also averred that the
matter has been decided during the period when there were
restrictions due to abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of
India and thereafter the whole of the world was hit by Covid-19
pandemic and the strict lockdown was being enforced. In nutshell,
the stand of the applicant is that because of the negligence of the
applicant, the judgment came to be passed at the back of the
applicant.
2. The said application has been opposed by the respondent no. 8, on
the ground that the applicant has been negligent in contesting the
writ petition as neither objections were filed by him nor he
appeared before the Court when the matter was listed. It is further
stated that the applicant has not explained the delay.
3. Mr. Nisar Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the applicant
submitted that the applicant cannot be allowed to suffer because of
the negligence of his counsel more particularly, when the
appointment of the applicant has been quashed by the writ court.
4. Mr. Rais Yousuf, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.
8, submitted that the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient
cause for his absence and as such, delay cannot be condoned.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that when the matter was heard
by the writ court on 05.09.2019, the respondent no. 8, had
appeared in person and there was no representation on behalf of
the applicant. The applicant has sworn an affidavit in support of
his application that he had done all the needful so as to enable his
counsel to file the response and further that he was assured that he
would take care of the interests of the applicant. The respondent
no. 8 has not disputed the said averments made by the applicant.
6. In view of above, we are of the considered view that the applicant
has succeeded in demonstrating the sufficient cause for condoning
the delay in filing the appeal against the Judgment impugned.
Resultantly, the application is allowed and as such, the delay
occurred in filing the appeal is condoned.
LPA No. 86/2022
Notice.
Notice waived by Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, learned Sr. AAG on behalf of
respondents 1, 4,6 & 7, and Mr. A. R. Malik, learned Sr. AAG on behalf of
respondents 2 & 3, and by Mr. Rais Yousuf, Advocate on behalf of
respondent no. 8.
Record of the writ court be also tagged.
List for final consideration on 09.03.2023.
In the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned Judgment to the
extent of quashing the selection and appointment of the appellant
shall remain stayed.
(MOHAN LAL) (RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
03.02.2023
Shaista
