Karamat Ullah Malik vs Ajaz Azad Commissioner/ Secretary To
2025 Latest Caselaw 2324 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Karamat Ullah Malik vs Ajaz Azad Commissioner/ Secretary To on 13 October, 2025

                                                                        Sr. No. 29

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU
Case: CCP(S) No. 364/2024
In WP(C) No. 2167/2021

Karamat Ullah Malik                                                ..... Petitioner(s)

                      Through :- Mr. Koshal Parihar, Advocate


                 Vs

Ajaz Azad Commissioner/ Secretary to                             .....Respondent(s)
Govt. Rural Dev. Deptt & Ors.

                      Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
                                 Mr. Abhishek Sharma, DC, Present in person.

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

13.10.2025

1. The instant contempt petition arises out of the order/judgment passed by this Court vide order dated 28.05.2024, wherein, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed and the respondents were directed to release a sum of Rs. 68.50 Lakh in favour of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date copy of the order was made available to the respondents.

2. It was further made clear that in case if the aforesaid sum was not released in favour of the petitioner within the stipulated time, in that eventuality, the outstanding amount along with interest @ 9% shall be payable to the petitioner by the respondents from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 30.09.2021. Furthermore, the interest component would be payable by the respondent/officer(s) on whose count such delay occurred.

3. Since the aforesaid order/judgment passed by this Court has not been complied within the time granted by this Court, the instant contempt petition has been preferred in which the notice has been issued to the respondents on 28.10.2024.

4. Record reveals that statement of facts stands filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 i.e. District Development Commissioner, Rajouri on 21.08.2025. The statement stipulates that the said respondent has taken the matter with the Administrative Department i.e. Rural Development Department previously and also has taken up the matter with the Finance Department vide communication dated 05.03.2020. Yet, the funds have not been made available to him.

5. The District Development Commissioner has also pleaded that he has no budgetary provision or authority to make such payments, unless funds are sanctioned and released by the competent authority, and this is the precise reason that the said respondent could not comply with the direction insofar as the release of the payment to the petitioner is concerned, in absence of necessary fund allocation.

6. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG while appearing for the respondents submits that she has filed a fresh compliance report on behalf of respondent No. 3, however, the same is not traceable on digital record. A copy of the same has been furnished to this Court, which has been taken on record. Perusal of the fresh compliance report filed on behalf of Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri reveals that with a view to comply with the direction of this Court and to ensure proper scrutiny and verification, a Committee of Officers was constituted vide order dated 25.09.2025 by Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri under the Chairmanship of the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) with the mandate to examine all financial aspects of the claim.

7. In addition, it has also been pleaded that the petitioner despite being informed, has not furnished the complete set of documents i.e. Measurement Book, Technical Sanction, Work Register, Work Bills/vouchers etc. due to which the further proceedings in the matter could not be initiated. A further stand has been taken that as and when the petitioner completes the

aforementioned formalities, then the directions passed by this Court will be implemented in letter and spirit.

8. Respondent No. 3-Abhishek Sharma, District Development Commissioner, who is present in person, in his fresh compliance report submits that he has already communicated in this regard to the Commissioner/Secretary, Rural Development Department and Panchayati Raj vide communication dated 11.06.2025 for release of funds with a view to comply the Court order and a reminder in this regard has also been issued on 11.10.2025 for the said purpose, with a copy to the respondent No. 2-Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department.

9. In addition, it has also been pleaded that the Rural Development Department has filed a Review Petition bearing RP No. 36 of 2025, in LPA No. 216/2024 against the order whereby the said LPA against the order of Writ Court was dismissed, and the next date of hearing of the review petition is fixed for 17.10.2025.

10. The record further reveals that instant contempt petition was listed before this Court on 26.09.2025 on which date, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Union Territory has preferred LPA against the writ Court order which also stood dismissed and this aspect of the matter has already been noted by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 18.08.2025, in the instant contempt petition.

11. There is no denial of the fact that the respondents have the right to take recourse to a legal remedy but unless the judgment of the learned writ Court is stayed by the Superior Court, the present proceedings cannot be deferred. As long as the order of the Writ Court is in force the respondents are duty bound to comply with the same. Therefore, the Court is of the view that in absence of any stay order from the Superior Forum, the respondents are under a legal obligation to comply the order/judgment passed by this Court in letter and spirit.

12. Since, the respondents have not complied with the order/judgment of the Writ Court, this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025, directed the Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department and the District Development Commissioner, Rajouri to appear in person on the next date of hearing through virtual/physical mode.

13. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the record further reveals that Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri was present in person on 26.09.2025 no plausible or justifiable reason was expressed for not complying the order/judgment passed by this Court, which has assumed finality. On the other hand, an application was preferred by the Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department for seeking his exemption which was withdrawn by learned counsel unconditionally as the same was accompanied with an affidavit of Under Secretary, Home, instead of affidavit to be filed by the contemnor-respondent No.2.

14. Thus, in light of the fact that LPA preferred by the Union Territory stood dismissed, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have no other option but to comply with the order/judgment in its letter and spirit and merely filing of a review petition does not render the order/judgment passed by the learned writ Court, ineffective.

15. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case, where Rule/ROBKAR is required to be framed against the respondents as respondents have willfully and deliberately not complied the order passed by this Court which has assumed finality and is upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench and as such, they are in recurring contempt.

16. Even, after the dismissal of the Letter Patent Appeal preferred by the Union Territory, no steps have been initiated for complying the order/judgment passed by this Court. However, on the other hand, with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioner, the review petition has been preferred with the sole object to protract the contempt proceedings. However, before framing any rule against the respondents, this Court granted last and final opportunity to

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to come up with the final compliance of the order/judgment passed by the writ Court, failing which, it was made it clear this Court will be constrained to frame rule against the said respondents.

17. In the aforesaid backdrop, the proceedings in the instant contempt petition were deferred and it was made clear that if order/judgment is complied with by or before the next date of hearing, then respondent Nos. 2 & 3 need not to appear on the date fixed. Conversely, if the judgment was not complied with, then respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were directed to appear in person.

18. Today, when the contempt petition was taken up, the position remains the same, though the respondent No. 3 has already initiated the process by requesting the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for the release of the amount so that order/judgment is complied with yet till date, the judgment has not been complied with by the respondent No. 1 & 2 as the requisite amount has not been released by the Administrative Department with the result that the respondents continue to flout the orders passed by this Court with impunity.

19. Thus, in light of the stand taken by the respondent No. 3 wherein he has specifically pleaded that he has issued communications and reminder, to the Secretary to Government i.e Respondent No. 1 copy whereof has been forwarded to the respondent No. 2, till date no action, has been taken by the said respondent and this is the precise reason that the amount as directed by this Court could not be released in favour of the petitioner

20. The conduct of the respondent No. 2 in showing scant respect to this Court, can be substantiated from a bare perusal of the already withdrawn application seeking exemption of personal appearance, for the reason that the same was not accepted by this Court, as the affidavit in the said application was sworn by some Under Secretary and in the aforesaid backdrop, the said application was withdrawn unconditionally and even today, respondent No. 2 who was directed to remain present by virtue of order dated 26.09.2025, is not present and on his behalf, Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG has filed yet another application for seeking exemption without pleading any justifiable

ground for such absence. Merely, because the Finance Secretary is currently stationed at Srinagar for performing his official duties, is not a justifiable ground for his absence. Accordingly, the instant application seeking exemption is also rejected. The copy of the said application has been furnished to this Court, which has been taken on record. On the other hand, a separate statement of facts has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, copy whereof has been furnished to this Court which has also been taken on record.

21. From a bare perusal of the statement of facts filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, a stand has been taken that till 24.09.2025, he has not taken up the matter with the Finance Department for the release of the funds or authorization thereof and instead has chosen to file Review Petition against the order whereby the LPA stands dismissed.

22. Thus, in light of the stand taken by the respondent No. 2 and 3, it is apparently clear that there is deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents not to comply the orders passed by this Court from time to time and with a view to frustrate the basic judgment, the respondents are adopting delaying tactics by taking different and contradictory stand by indulging in uncalled for correspondence to defeat the rights of the petitioner. Thus, the act of the respondents is willful and deliberate and this Court is Prima facie of the view that the respondents have flouted the orders passed by this Court willfully and deliberately which constitute contempt of Court.

23. Since, respondent No. 2 has shown scant respect to the orders passed by this court from time to time and he has not bothered to appear before this Court on 18.08.2025 & 26.09.2025 and instead has filed applications for seeking exemption without any justifiable ground. Neither, he has bothered to appear before this Court in terms of the orders passed by this Court nor he has complied the Court orders and has not released the funds which could have paved way for the respondent No. 3 to have released the amount by way of admitted liability along with the interest.

24. Therefore, the act of the respondents with particular reference to respondent No. 2 is willful and deliberate with a view to avoid implementation of the order passed by this Court. Even, the affidavits filed by the Finance Secretary reveals that he has taken a contradictory stand with respect to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 & 3, wherein they have taken specific stand that the matter has already been referred to the Finance Secretary for the release of the funds and on the other hand, respondent No. 2, the contemnor herein, has taken a stand that indenting department has not taken up the matter with the Finance Department for the release of fund.

25. Thus, it is amply clear that all the respondents are adopting dilly-dally tactics with this Court by shifting onus on each other by taking contradictory stand with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioner and also to frustrate the judgment earned by the petitioner which has already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court.

26. Thus, the conduct of the respondents is Prima facie contemptuous as the respondents are delaying the implementation of the Court order by indulging in uncalled for correspondence.

27. This Court is of the view that whatever was within the domain of respondent No. 3 has already been done by taking up the matter with the Administrative Department and also with the Finance Department for the release of the grant. Insofar as the respondent No.1 is concerned the funds can only be released in favour of the petitioner by the Indenting Department, once, the Administrative approval is accorded by the Finance Department which till date has not happened as the respondent No.2 has not released the funds so far.

28. Thus it is a fit case, where the ROBKAR/Rule is required to be framed against Principal Secretary, Finance Department (respondent No.2) at the first instance for his willful and deliberate conduct not to comply the orders of this Court.

29. Accordingly, Registry is directed to frame ROBKAR/Rule against Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Santosh D Vaidya, contemnor herein, asking him to explain by filing reply within two weeks, as to why he should not be proceeded against and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

30. List on 03.11.2025.

(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE

JAMMU 13.10.2025 Suraj K. Singh