A N CHAKOO Vs. SUB JUDGE ANATNAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE particulars of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not been furnished which has with -held the progress of this case. There is a stop order which was passed as far back as 20th of October, 1981. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this account. But we may add that we could have been a little liberal as well, are not inclined to grant any indulgence because we have come across the decision of the Supreme Court in Naresh Versus state of Maharashtra (A. I. R. 1967 SC, 1) in which it has been held that judiction of a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be said to affect the fundamental rights and that the remedy of the aggrieved party shall be by way of an appeal against the decision and not by a writ petition. This writ petition is directed against a judicial order and is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. which stands in its way. For all these reasons, we dismiss this writ petition but without any order as to cost.