01. The record reveals that the ROBKAR has been framed in SWP No.
"29. Before parting, I would like to record the contempt of Court that
had the selection record been produced before this Court, when SWP
No. 1918/97 was being heard, the matter would have been set at rest
about two decades ago. Since the Service Selection Board as well as
Deputy Commissioner, Jammu had failed to produce the record at the
relevant time; the apathy of petitioner can be well gauzed that he has
been suffering for more than twenty one years in contesting the
litigation. When the petitioner first filed SWP No. 1918/1997 he was
shown 36 years of age and now he must have crossed the age of 57
years; meaning thereby he spent a good period of his life in courts
contesting litigation one after another for redressal of his genuine
grievance. Since the delay caused was mainly on account of laxity on
the part of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, forcing the petitioner to face
four rounds of litigation and spending huge amount of contesting the
litigation despite being an unemployed person, in such circumstances
the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu is burdened with costs of rupees fifty
thousand, to be deposited by him in the Registry of this Court within a
period of four weeks from today. On deposit, the same shall be released
in favour of petitioner after proper verification and identification. It is
made clear that in case the Deputy Commissioner fails to deposit the
costs within the aforesaid period. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to
frame a separate robkar against him, after issuance of notice to him,
list the same before the Court."
02. As per the note of the Registry, it is apparent that by virtue of the
aforesaid direction, four weeks' time granted by the Court stood expired on
27.06.2018 and the costs have not been deposited within the aforesaid period, in
spite of the fact that the certified copy of the order has been obtained by the
learned Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the official respondents.
03. In the aforesaid backdrop, notice was issued by the Registrar Judicial of
this Court to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Jammu to show cause in the
instant matter and to appear in person or through the concerned Advocate on
18.07.2018.
04. The record further reveals that the instant ROBKAR was listed before this
Court on 23.05.2025 and also on 04.08.2025 on which date, none has appeared
on behalf of both the parties and today, when the instant ROBKAR was taken
up, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned
Sr. AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent- Kumar Rajeev Ranjan that the
matter landed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the costs was enhanced from
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- and Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG submits
that the same has already been deposited on 20.02.2023. Thus, she prays that the
proceedings in the instant ROBKAR be dropped, as the costs in terms of
Hon'ble Supreme Court has since been deposited before the Registry of this
Court and the order stands complied with.
05. With a view to verify her claim, she has also provided the copy of the
receipt certifying the factum of depositing the aforesaid amount before the
Registry of this Court which has been taken on record. Thus, in the light of the
above, the proceedings in the instant ROBKAR are dropped against the said
respondent-Kumar Rajeev Ranjan and the same stands closed.
06. The relevant documents which have been provided by Mrs. Monika
Kohli, learned Sr. AAG are also taken on record along with the receipt.
07. Accordingly, the proceedings in the instant ROBKAR are closed.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
14.10.2025
Riya Kochhar
