Suraj Parkash vs Farooq Ahmed Shah And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2204 j&K

                                                                 Sr. No. 22
      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

                                                     CPOWP No. 241/2018


Suraj Parkash                                    .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                        Through:-   Ms. Navdeep Kour, Advocate with
                                    Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate.

                  V/s

Farooq Ahmed Shah and others                              .....Respondent(s)

                        Through:-   Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
                     ORDER

07.10.2023

01. The petitioner has approached this Court for initiating contempt

proceedings against the respondents for non-compliance of judgment

dated 23.05.2018 passed in OWP No. 1006/2018 titled „Suraj Parkash vs.

State of J&K and others'. The writ petition was disposed of with the

following directions:

"Looking into the controversy in question, this petition at the threshold is disposed of with a direction to die respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and release an amount of Rs.6,38,287/- in favour of the petitioner in accordance with rules. Let this exercise be done within a period of eight weeks from today. Connected MP also stands disposed of accordingly."

02. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG, has filed the statement of facts and

in the statement of facts, the respondents have submitted that in

compliance to the directions of this Court dated 23.05.2018 they have

passed a speaking order dated 08.05.2023 and they have examined the

case of the petitioner in the Divisional Office and after perusal of the

record of the petitioner and to ascertain the facts about the alleged work

done claim, if any, available at the Divisional Office, a letter was

circulated among all the branch heads of the Division vide no:

JID/11/362-65 dated 27.04.2023 to ascertain the genuineness /authenticity

of the claim, if possessed by any branch heads and in response, it has been

reported that no claim is lying in any branch of Division and no e-NlT has

been floated, no allotment is issued, no work has been executed and no

bill is available for the work claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the

case of the petitioner was rejected.

03. In view of the above, the order of this Court dated 23.05.2018

stands complied.

04. Accordingly, proceedings in this contempt petition stand closed.

(Sindhu Sharma) Judge

Jammu:

07.10.2023 Michal Sharma