INHABITANTS OF VILLAGE BRINAL DEVSAR AND OTHERS SHEIKH IMTIYAZ AHMAD vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING) AND OTHERS — WP(C)/1246/2026

Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off as Withdrawn on 03rd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JKHC010026002026

Filing Number

WP(C)/1978/2026

Filing Date

30-May-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/1246/2026

Registration Date

30-May-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

03-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off as Withdrawn

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Article 226-Section103 Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.INHABITANTS OF VILLAGE BRINAL DEVSAR AND OTHERS SHEIKH IMTIYAZ AHMAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING) AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq NargalView PDF

    The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, finding it was an impermissible second round of litigation raising identical grounds already addressed in WP(C) 144/2026. The court held that petitioners should have sought implementation of the previous order through appropriate remedies rather than filing a duplicate petition, but directed respondents to comply with the February 6, 2026 order within one week with a speaking order, warning of coercive measures for non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/1246/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, finding it was an impermissible second round of litigation raising identical grounds already addressed in WP(C) 144/2026. The court held that petitioners should have sought implementation of the previous order through appropriate remedies rather than filing a duplicate petition, but directed respondents to comply with the February 6, 2026 order within one week with a speaking order, warning of coercive measures for non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case