U.T. Of J&K And Ors vs Vijay Kumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 2037 j&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

U.T. Of J&K And Ors vs Vijay Kumar on 7 October, 2024

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Dhar

                                               S. No. 24
                                               Regular Cause List
               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                               AT JAMMU

      Case:- LPA No. 25/2024
            CM No. 701/2024
            CM No. 702/2024

        U.T. of J&K and Ors.                          ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

      Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG

                                           Vs.

        Vijay Kumar                                                 ...Respondent(s)


      Through: Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate

      CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
                                       ORDER

07.10.2024

01. The appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir against

the order/judgment dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court [Writ Court] in OWP No. 1518/2014 is delayed by 505 days.

Hence, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking

condonation of delay.

02. In the application filed by the appellants, it is pleaded that copy of the

judgment was obtained immediately and the matter was examined at different

levels. Finally, the matter landed before the Law Department for opinion. On

the basis of opinion tendered by the Law Department, the appeal was

preferred.

03. It is submitted that it took some time to take a formal decision as to

whether the judgment of the Writ Court should be appealed against or not.

04. We have gone through the contents of the application carefully and

we find that the explanation tendered is only an ipse dixit of the appellants

and does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the huge delay of 505

days. We can appreciate that in the Government working, the

officers/officials dealing with the files do not have personal responsibility

and, therefore, the matter gets delayed to some extent. However, the delay of

505 days is too large to be explained on aforesaid count.

05. Thus, we find no merit in this application, the same is, accordingly,

dismissed and consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed being barred by

limitation.

                    (SANJAY DHAR)                       (SANJEEV KUMAR)
                         JUDGE                                JUDGE

 JAMMU
 07.10.2024
 Mihul



                    Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
                    Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No