Mohammad Amin Shah And Ors vs Nitishwar Kumar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 595 j&K/2

                                                  S. No. 211
                                                  Supplementary Matter
     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                AT SRINAGAR
                                                    CCP(S) No. 600/2021

Mohammad Amin Shah and Ors.                             .....Petitioner(s)

                      Through:       Mr. L. A Latief, Adv.
     V/s
Nitishwar Kumar and Ors.                                ..... Respondent(s)

                      Through:       Mr. Alaudin Ganai, Dy. AG.
CORAM:
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge.

                                 ORDER

17.05.2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on

record.

2. This petition is filed for initiating contempt proceedings against

respondents for non compliance of the judgment dated 16.08.2018

passed in SWP No. 1922/2018 whereby a direction was issued to

the respondents to accord consideration to the case of the petitioners

in light of averments made in the petition and judgment passed in

SWP No. 2455/2001 titled Subash Chander and Ors. Vs. State of JK

and ors. which was upheld by Division Bench provided the case of

the petitioner is covered by the said judgment.

3. On being put on notice, the respondents have placed on record copy

of the consideration order No. 16 of 2022 dated 12.05.2022 whereby

case of the petitioners has been considered and rejected. From Page |2 CCP(S) No. 600/2021

perusal of the consideration order, it transpires that the consideration

accorded to the case of the petitioners is not strictly in terms of the

judgment passed by this Court. Least that was required to be done

by the respondents was to go through the averments made by the

petitioners in their petition and then find out as to whether they were

covered by the judgment dated 26.02.2008 rendered in SWP No.

2455/2001. In other words, the respondents should have, on

consideration, come to the conclusion as to how and why the

petitioners are not similarly placed with the writ petition of SWP

No. 2455/2001 and as to why the similar relief as has been granted

to the writ petitioners in the aforesaid petition, could not be

granted. The respondents have instead relied upon Rule 296(1) (2)

and 298 of the GFR-2017 and Circular dated 06.10.2021 to deny

similar relief to the petitioners.

4. Viewed from any angle, the order of consideration is not in accord

with the directions contained in judgment dated 16.08.2018. The

consideration order is, therefore, not in tune with the judgment

passed by this Court. That being the position, Mr. Alaudin Ganai,

learned AAG is granted four weeks time to reconsider the case of

the petitioners strictly in light of averments made in the writ petition

and also the judgment passed by this Court dated 26.02.2008

rendered in SWP No. 2455/2001, provided the case of the petitioners Page |3 CCP(S) No. 600/2021

is covered by the said judgment If the respondents are of the view

that the case of the petitioners is not covered by the aforesaid

judgment or that the benefit of the aforesaid judgment could not be

given to the petitioners, the respondents shall spell out reasons in

this regard.

5. List on 12.07.2023.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge SRINAGAR 17.05.2023 "Aasif"