RAVINDER KUMAR A A KHAN vs STATE TH.RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.AND ORS. — SWP/1388/2018
Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 1A. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed for Non Prosecution on 08th May 2026.
CNR: JKHC020057522018
Filing Number
SWP/4905/2018
Filing Date
11-Jul-2018
Registration No
SWP/1388/2018
Registration Date
11-Jul-2018
Judge
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma
Coram
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
SB SERVICE WRIT PETITIONS ( 100 )
Sub-Category
MATTERS PERTAINING TO STATE GOVT. ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
SERVICE WRIT PETITION (SWP)
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed for Non Prosecution
Last updated 08-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAVINDER KUMAR A A KHAN
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE TH.RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.AND ORS.
-
2.DIRECTOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
-
3.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEVELOPMENT
-
4.BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
-
5.ARVIND SINGH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu SharmaView PDF
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed petitioner Ravinder Kumar's writ petition for non-prosecution and default of appearance after he failed to appear on four consecutive hearing dates (27.07.2018, 13.08.2018, 11.04.2025, and 08.05.2026). The court concluded the petitioner had abandoned the case and vacated any interim directions previously issued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
For Orders After Notice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur
-
26-Sep-2018
For Orders After Notice
Lok Adalat
-
13-Aug-2018
For Service
Registrar Judicial
-
27-Jul-2018
For Service
Registrar Judicial
-
12-Jul-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Jul-2018
Case filed
Registration No. SWP/1388/2018
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed petitioner Ravinder Kumar's writ petition for non-prosecution and default of appearance after he failed to appear on four consecutive hearing dates (27.07.2018, 13.08.2018, 11.04.2025, and 08.05.2026). The court concluded the petitioner had abandoned the case and vacated any interim directions previously issued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts