STATE OF J&P Vs. SARWAR AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of J &K, through Commissioner Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, has filed an application seeking the indulgence of this Court in condoning the delay of 230 days in filing the Appeal against the order dated 19-09-2016 of this Court, passed in SWP 957/2016, inter alia, on the grounds that immediately after receiving the certified copy of the order aforementioned, the applicants - appellants examined the case of the writ petitioner at their own level. The communication dated 03-06-2017 of the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, - respondent No.3 in the writ petition, directed filing of an Appeal and the applicants, immediately, referred the matter to the learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) for further action. The learned AAG examined the record and finally drafted and prepared the appeal on 24-06-2017 and in the process, some time was consumed.

(2.) The applicant has proceeded to state further that the delay of some months, caused due to the administrative exigencies, in filing of the Appeal is bona fide and not deliberate or intentional. It has also been stated that the Appeal has an important bearing as far as the interests of the Appellants are concerned and in case the delay in filing the Appeal is not condoned, it will cause great prejudice to the State. The application is buttressed with an affidavit.

(3.) The respondent has further stated that in view of the judgement dated 19-09-2016 of this Court, passed in SWP 957/2016, the respondent No.3 - Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, was obliged to pass the appointment order in favour of the writ petitioner but he did not do so. He slept over the matter and the writ petitioner-respondent herein, was compelled to file the Contempt Petition bearing No. 68/2016 before the Court and the Court vide order dated 11-07-2017, directed the respondent-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, to remain present in person before the Court in case directions of the Court are not complied with. The respondent proceeds to state that it is only to circumvent and scuttle the said order, passed in the Contempt petition, that the applicants-appellants have filed the LPA against the judgement dated 19-09-2016 passed in the writ petition, which, on the face of it, is not maintainable. In the end it has been urged that the application being cryptic and there being no ground, much less a sufficient one, for the Condonation of Delay, same is liable to be dismissed.