UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (PUBLIC WORKS) MR. ABDUL RASHID MALIK vs ABDUL RAZAK SOFI — LPA/253/2025
Case under Letters Patent Section 12. Disposed: Contested--Dismised on 05th May 2026.
CNR: JKHC010054862025
e-Filing Number
23-09-2025
Filing Number
LPA/4090/2025
Filing Date
15-10-2025
Registration No
LPA/253/2025
Registration Date
15-10-2025
Judge
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE , HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR
Coram
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE , HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR
Bench Type
DIVISION BENCH
Category
DB LPA(SW) ( 200 )
Sub-Category
RETIRAL BENEFIT. ( 8 )
Judicial Branch
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (LPA)
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismised
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (PUBLIC WORKS) MR. ABDUL RASHID MALIK
COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Adv. abdul rashid
DIRECTOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KASHMIR
Adv. abdul rashid
Respondent(s)
ABDUL RAZAK SOFI
Orders
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR
Summary: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the Union Territory's application seeking condonation of a 2802-day delay in filing an intra-court appeal against a December 14, 2017 judgment. The court found the explanation inadequate—mere bureaucratic processing and obtaining legal sanction were insufficient justification for the 7+ year delay, particularly since appellants showed no activity until 2025. The court noted no credible cause existed to condone such an excessive delay and accordingly dismissed both the condonation application and the underlying appeal (LPA 253/2025). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the Union Territory's application seeking condonation of a 2802-day delay in filing an intra-court appeal against a December 14, 2017 judgment. The court found the explanation inadequate—mere bureaucratic processing and obtaining legal sanction were insufficient justification for the 7+ year delay, particularly since appellants showed no activity until 2025. The court noted no credible cause existed to condone such an excessive delay and accordingly dismissed both the condonation application and the underlying appeal (LPA 253/2025). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts