MOHAMMAD QAZIM HAJAM AND ANOTHER TAWHEED AHMED vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT) AND OTHERS — WP(C)/963/2026

Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off as Withdrawn on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JKHC010019572026

Filing Number

WP(C)/1497/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/963/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Bench Type

SINGLE BENCH

Category

SB OTHER WRIT PETITIONS ( 101 )

Sub-Category

REVENUE LAWS ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

OTHER WRIT PETITION (OWP)

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off as Withdrawn

Last updated 08-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Article 226-Section103 Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHAMMAD QAZIM HAJAM AND ANOTHER TAWHEED AHMED

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT) AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq NargalView PDF

    The writ petition filed by Mohammad Qazim Hajam and another against the UT of J&K (Jal Shakti Department) was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.05.2026. During hearing, when the court questioned the maintainability of the petition, petitioners' counsel sought withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh petition after impleading necessary parties as required respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    For Admission Fresh

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/963/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The writ petition filed by Mohammad Qazim Hajam and another against the UT of J&K (Jal Shakti Department) was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.05.2026. During hearing, when the court questioned the maintainability of the petition, petitioners' counsel sought withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh petition after impleading necessary parties as required respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case