Romesh Chander And Others vs Giridhar Aramane And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1394 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Romesh Chander And Others vs Giridhar Aramane And Others on 20 August, 2025

                                                                  Sr. No. 19

          HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                          AT JAMMU

CCP(S) No.317/2024 in
WP(C) No.2152/2023

Romesh Chander and others                                     ..... Petitioner(s)

                   Through: Mr. Manik Bhardwaj, Advocate

                Vs

Giridhar Aramane and others                                 ..... Respondent(s)

                   Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, CGSC for R-1 & 4.
                            Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Assisting Counsel to
                            Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-2 & 3

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE

                                   ORDER

20.08.2025

1. It is very strange that the order which was required to be complied with by

the respondent No.3 within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the

order on 29.04.2024, has not been complied with even after more than sixteen

months. What to talk of complying the Court order even the compliance report

has not been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 in terms of order dated

29.07.2025.

2. This court in the interest of justice, grant one week's last and final

opportunity to respondent No.3 to come up with the final compliance of the

order/judgment passed by this Court dated 29.04.2024 passed in WP(C)

No.2152/2023, failing which, the Deputy Commissioner, Samba shall appear in

person or through virtual mode at the first instance.

3. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to respondent No.3 for

its immediate compliance.

4. At this stage, Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned CGSC submits that the

respondent Nos.1 & 4 have unnecessarily been arrayed as party respondents in

the instant contempt petition when the direction was issued only to respondent

No.3 to comply the order/judgment in question.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, respondent Nos.1 & 4 are struck off from the

arraying of the respondents in the instant contempt petition. However, the

contempt petition will proceed insofar as rest of the respondents concerned.

6. Registry is directed to update the cause title.

7. List on 08.09.2025.

8. In the meantime, petitioners are directed to lay motion for substituting the

new incumbents as party respondents.

(Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge Jammu 20.08.2025 Shammi