TARIQ RASOOL AND ORS SUDERSHAN SHARMA vs STATE OF J AND K TH. COMMISSIONER SECY. FOOD ,CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT. AND ORS — SWP/2284/2018

Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 1A. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed for Non Prosecution on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 02-Nov-2018

CNR: JKHC020094772018

Filing Number

SWP/8089/2018

Filing Date

01-Nov-2018

Registration No

SWP/2284/2018

Registration Date

01-Nov-2018

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar

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

Article 226-Section103 Section 1A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TARIQ RASOOL AND ORS SUDERSHAN SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF J AND K TH. COMMISSIONER SECY. FOOD ,CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT. AND ORS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev KumarView PDF

    The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the petition filed by Tariq Rasool and others for non-prosecution. The court found that despite over seven years passing since notice was issued in November 2018, the petitioners failed to serve respondents, make any effort to list the case, or appear before the court—apparently benefiting from an interim stay order. Consequently, all interim directions were vacated and the petition was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Nov-2018

    For Admission After Notice

  4. 01-Nov-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. SWP/2284/2018

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the petition filed by Tariq Rasool and others for non-prosecution. The court found that despite over seven years passing since notice was issued in November 2018, the petitioners failed to serve respondents, make any effort to list the case, or appear before the court—apparently benefiting from an interim stay order. Consequently, all interim directions were vacated and the petition was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case