Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Tasleem Akhter And Others vs State Of J&K And Others on 20 May, 2025
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Serial No. 04
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case:- OWP No. 1969/2014
Tasleem Akhter and others .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. A. H. Qazi, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.
Vs
State of J&K and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
(20.05.2025)
1. The original writ petitioner-Chirag Din, upon his death
which took place on 12.04.2021 came to be substituted by his eight
legal representatives brought on record in terms of an order dated
28.08.2023 to carry forward the adjudication of the writ petition to
its logical end.
2. The digital file does not bear the reference of original writ
petitioner-Chirag Din having expired and being represented by his
legal representatives.
3. Registry is directed to correct the scanning error with
respect to the digital file whereas physical file is referring to the fact
of original writ petitioner-Chirag Din having died and his legal
representatives being mentioned in the memo of parties.
4. On behalf of the legal representatives No. 1 to 3, namely,
Tasleem Akhter (widow), Zamir Alam (son) and Sikander Ali (son),
Mr. A. H. Qazi, Advocate came to cause appearance by submission
of vakalatnama dated 18.02.2025 whereas on behalf of the legal
representative No. 6-Mumtaz Begum, Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
entered appearance. In fact, it is on the application of legal
representative No. 6-Mumtaz Begum that the legal representatives
of the original writ petitioner-Chirag Din was brought on record.
5. On behalf of the legal representative No. 4-Arshad Bano
and legal representative No. 5-Shamshed Begum, Mr. Naresh
Kumar, Advocate came to submit his vakalatnama on 18.11.2023.
6. On behalf of the legal representative No. 7-Zarina Begum
and legal representative No. 8-Amina Chowdri, Mr. Harshwardhan
Gupta, Advocate came to enter appearance through vakalatnama
dated 14.01.2023.
7. Thus, all the legal representatives in the case are being
represented by the respective counsel.
8. Writ pleadings are complete.
9. From the response of the respondents No. 3 & 4 i.e.
Custodian General and Custodian Jammu, there is a reference
coming to the fact that before the present writ petition, the original
writ petitioner-Chirag Din had filed a writ petition OWP
No. 1070/2012 disposed of vide judgment dated 23.08.2012 bearing
the same subject matter as involved in the present writ petition.
10. Before proceeding further, this Court directs the Registry to
tag OWP No. 1070/2012 with the present petition.
11. Await appearance of learned counsel for the legal
representatives of respondents No. 4, 5, 7 & 8.
12. List on07.07.2025.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
20.05.2025
Shivalee
