Ranjeet Singh Jaral vs Mandeep Kour & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2461 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Ranjeet Singh Jaral vs Mandeep Kour & Ors on 28 October, 2025

Author: Rahul Bharti

Bench: Rahul Bharti

                                                   Serial No. 91

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
                       LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

                       CCP(S) No. 102/2023
                        CM No. 2122/2023
                                In
                       WP(C) No. 2288/2021


                            Date of pronouncement : 28.10.2025
                                       Uploaded on : 30.10.2025

Ranjeet Singh Jaral
                                                   .... Petitioner

                Through:-   Mr. Asheesh Singh Kotwal, Advocate

                        V/s

Mandeep Kour & Ors.
                                                .....Respondents

                Through:-   None.
\


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
                       JUDGMENT (ORAL)

01. The petitioner's writ petition-WP(C) No. 2288/2021 came

to be disposed of without adjudication on merits by virtue of

an order dated 22.10.2021, with a direction unto the writ

respondents to consider the claim and release the outstanding

liability amount payable to the petitioner for the identified

work, as mentioned in para 6 of the order dated 22.10.2021,

by keeping in view the communication dated 21.12.2020.

02. The needful exercise was to be done within a period of

six weeks, which not having been done, led to the institution of

the present contempt petition filed on 16.03.2023 and ever

since then the contempt petition is gathering weight in terms

of addition of compliance reports.

03. From the end of the respondents/contemnors, a

consideration order No. DRDJ/LEG/4413-18 dated

16.05.2023 has been passed with reference to the

Administrative Department's communication, holding that the

petitioner's claim is devoid of merits.

04. Mr. Asheesh S. Kotwal, learned counsel for the

petitioner, submits that the consideration order is bad in the

eyes of law as the same is contrary to the communication on

record and, therefore, the case of the petitioner admits of only

one outcome i.e., payment of the contract amount for the work

done.

05. Be that as it may, given the fact that consideration order

has come forward, as such, in a contempt jurisdiction to look

into the merits and demerits of the consideration order would

be going beyond the scope of the Writ Court's order and,

therefore, this Court reserves liberty in favour of the petitioner

to come forward assailing the consideration order in a proper

manner through the medium of a writ petition.

06. The time spent during the pendency of the contempt

petition will not come in the way of the petitioner in filing a

fresh writ petition for assailing the order No.

DRDJ/LEG/4413-18 dated 16.05.2023.

07. The present contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed

of along with connected application(s).

(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 28.10.2025 Bunty Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No

Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No