1 *Re-REVISED ITEM NO.1501 Court 9 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5189-5192/2017 ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS ETC.ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 392-395/2019 in C.A. No. 5189-5192/2017 (XVI-A) Date : 18-01-2021 These matters were called on for judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Ms. Purnima Bhat, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Avni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Ms. Shashi Juneja, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Keshav Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna and His Lordship.
2 T he appeals are allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. The Contempt Petitions are closed as no further orders are necessary in view of the Orders passed in the appeals and the directions issued therein. (NEELAM GULATI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed Judgment is placed on the file)
3 *REVISED ITEM NO.1501 Court 9 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5189-5192/2017 ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS ETC.ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 392-395/2019 in C.A. No. 5189-5192/2017 (XVI-A) Date : 18-01-2021 These matters were called on for judgment today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Ms. Purnima Bhat, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Avni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Ms. Shashi Juneja, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Keshav Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna and His Lordship.
4 T he appeals are allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. The Contempt Petitions are closed as no further orders are necessary in view of the Orders passed in the appeals and the directions issued therein. (NEELAM GULATI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed Judgment is placed on the file) *REVISED for appearance only
5 ITEM NO.1501 Court 9 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5189-5192/2017 ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS ETC.ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 392-395/2019 in C.A. No. 5189-5192/2017 (XVI-A) Date : 18-01-2021 These matters were called on for judgment today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Ms. Purnima Bhat, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Avni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Ms. Shashi Juneja, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna and His Lordship.
6 T he appeals are allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. The Contempt Petitions are closed as no further orders are necessary in view of the Orders passed in the appeals and the directions issued therein. (NEELAM GULATI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed Judgment is placed on the file)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.51895192 0F 2017 ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. … R ESPONDENT(S) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOs.392395 OF 2019 in CIVIL APPEAL NOs.51895192 0F 2017 J U D G M E N T V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. Challenging a common order passed in a batch of Letters Patent Appeals confirming the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, quashing an administrative Order of the Chief Justice prescribing certain qualifications for promotion to the post of Head Assistant along with a power of relaxation, persons who were fully 1
qualified as per the rules at the time of appointment, have come up with the above Civil Appeals. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Counsel for the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. 3. The contesting private respondents were originally appointed as peons (ClassIV) during the period 19891995. They were promoted as Junior Assistants in the year 1997 and as Senior Assistants in 19981999. Up to this stage of their career, there were no hiccups. 4. In contrast, the appellants in these appeals were directly recruited to the post of Junior Assistants in the year 1998. They were promoted as Senior Assistants on various dates in the years 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2008. 5. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir is a creation of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. Section 108 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir which is similar to Article 229 of the Constitution of India deals with “Officers and servants of the High Court”. Under Subsection (1) of Section 108, appointments of 2
officers and servants of the High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other person as the Chief Justice may direct. The conditions of Service of the officers and servants of the High Court, as per Subsection (2), shall be such as may be prescribed by the Rules made by the High Court with the approval of the Governor. Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 108 reads as follows: “108. Officers and servants of the High Court. (1) Appointments of officers and servants of the High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct; Provided that the Governor may by rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission; (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature, the conditions of service of the officers and servants of the High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the High Court with the approval of the Governor.” 6. In exercise of the powers conferred by Subsection (2) of Section 108, the High Court issued a set of Rules known as the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, with the approval of the Governor of the State. While Rule 4 stipulates that all appointments of the staff of the High Court 3
including promotions shall be made by the Chief Justice, the power to lay down the qualifications and to determine the mode of recruitment is conferred by Rule 6 upon the Chief Justice. Rule 6 reads as follows: “6. Qualifications and mode of recruitment . – The Chief Justice may from time to time lay down the qualifications of a member of service and determine the mode of recruitment.” 7. In exercise of the power conferred by Rule 6, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir issued an Office Order No.579 dated 24.10.2008, prescribing the qualifications as well as the mode of recruitment for appointment and promotion to various posts in the High Court. The method of recruitment, the minimum qualification required, the experience, if any, and the pay scales stipulated for three posts , namely , the posts of Head Assistant, Senior Assistant and Junior Assistant, in the Table contained in the Chief Justice’s Order dated 24.10.2008 are of importance for the appeals on hand and hence they are reproduced as follows: Post Method of recruitment Minimum Educational Qualification Experience , if any Pay Scale Head By promotion Graduate from a Two years 50008000 4
Assistant from amongst Senior Assistants on the basis of senioritycum merit recognised University Senior Assistant By promotion from amongst Junior Assistants on the basis of meritcum Seniority Graduate from a recognised University Two years 40006000 Junior Assistant (A) 75% by direct recruitment (B) 25% by promotion from amongst ClassIV employees on the basis of Seniority cummerit (A) Graduate from a recognised University (B) Matriculation 30504910 8. The Office Order No.579 dated 24.10.2008 issued by the Chief Justice of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, contained a Note towards the end. The Note reads as follows: “1. If the candidate(s) is/are not available from the relevant feeding cadre then the selection/appointment shall be made from amongst the candidates from other equivalent cadre(s). 2. Since the requirement of graduation for entry into the High Court service was prescribed vide Notification dated 25.4.1987, at that time officials having qualification less than graduation entered the service. Such officials having during this period gained sufficient experience in the working of the administration, the Chief Justice may on his own or on the recommendations of committee, if soconstituted, relax the qualification in cases ofofficers/officials who have made their entry into the service on or before the 25 th April, 1987. Further the minimum period of experience can also be relaxed in exceptional and appropriate cases. The officials can get only one relaxation at the time.” 5
9. It is relevant to note at this stage that the prescription of the minimum educational qualification of a graduation, was not an innovation by the Chief Justice, made all of a sudden in the year 2008. It appears that even way back on 25.04.1987, graduation was prescribed as a qualification for promotion to the post of Head Assistant. Keeping this in mind, let us now go back to the background in which the controversy on hand arose. 10. On 26.10.2008, persons like the appellants who were directly recruited as Junior Assistants in year 1998 with the qualification of graduation, were promoted as Head Assistants from the post of Senior Assistants. It appears that still some vacancies were available and hence the contesting respondents herein who entered service as ClassIV employees and who had risen upto the position of Senior Assistants, were also promoted as Head Assistants. However, such promotions were intended to fill up the gap till eligible candidates were available. 11. Challenging the promotions so granted to the contesting respondents herein, on the ground that they were not qualified at 6
the relevant point of time, a writ petition in Writ Petition No.1751 of 2008 was filed. On 22.04.2010 the writ petition was allowed and the Order of the promotion dated 24.11.2008 of the contesting respondents was set aside. 12. The affected parties filed appeals in LPA Nos.45 and 84 of 2010, but those appeals were dismissed on 30.08.2011. As a consequence thereof, all persons like the appellants herein, who were left out earlier, were promoted on 30.08.2011 as Head Assistants. 13. Finding that the benefit promotion that came to them was short lived and also finding that this was on account of the office Order dated 24.10.2008 of the Chief Justice, the contesting respondents herein filed a set of writ petitions in Writ Petition Nos.489 of 2010, 2681 of 2011, 2344 of 2011 and 501 of 2012. 14. By a common Order dated 30.08.2013, a learned Judge of the High Court allowed the set of four writ petitions and quashed the Chief Justice’s Order dated 24.10.2008. Primarily, the reasoning of the learned Judge was (i) that all persons working as Senior Assistants constituted a homogenous group and hence there cannot 7
be any differentiation among them on the basis of educational qualifications; (ii) that the Chief Justice’s order dated 24.10.2008 was not put up before the Full Court for approval; (iii) that Note2 of the Chief Justice’s Order restricts the power of relaxation available to the Chief Justice only to cases of persons appointed before 25.04.1987 and hence it is invalid; and (iv) that the Order of the Chief Justice had the effect of affecting individuals adversely with retrospective effect. 15. Challenging the Order of learned Judge dated 30.08.2013 passed in favour of the contesting respondents herein, the appellants herein filed a set of Letters Patent Appeals. These appeals were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by a final Order dated 16.04.2016. It is against the said Order that the appellants are before us. 16. On 13.05.2016, notice was ordered by this Court in the special leave petitions. An interim stay of the Order of the Division Bench of the High Court was also granted. Subsequently leave was granted and the appeals are before us. 8
17. It appears that after this Court granted an interim stay on 13.05.2016, an office order was issued on 29.06.2016 regularising the services of a candidate who was an undergraduate and who was given out of turn promotion. Subsequently a few more orders of similar nature were issued forcing the appellants to move contempt petitions in Contempt Petition (C) Nos.392395 of 2019. These contempt petitions were also taken up along with the main appeals. 18. The impugned Judgment is assailed on the grounds inter alia: (i) that a classification is permissible on the basis of educational qualifications, even within a homogenous group, for the purpose of promotion to a higher post; (ii) that an order passed by the Chief Justice in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 6 need not go before the Full Court; (iii) that the order of the Chief Justice dated 24.10.2008 does not curtail the power of relaxation available to the Chief Justice; and (iv) that the order of the Chief Justice was not actually retrospective in nature. 19. In addition to the above contentions, it is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that as on date, those 9
contesting respondents who are now in service, have all acquired a degree and that therefore the question that remains to be answered is only one of seniority. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that if no one is reverted and if the power of the Chief Justice to prescribe the qualifications under Rule 6 is upheld, then the long standing lis can be put to an end by fixing seniority on the basis of possession of qualifications at the time of appointment/promotion to the relevant post. 20. However, it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that once a person has been appointed/promoted, he becomes part of a homogenous class within which there can be no differentiation and that what is applicable to the case on hand is only Rule 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, ( hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules, 1956”) under which the power of relaxation vests with the Government and that under Rule 18 of these Rules, it is for the Government to prescribe the qualifications for appointment to any service. 21. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. 10
22. Before we proceed to analyse the rival contentions, it must be kept in mind that the contesting respondents herein have actually secured a second lease of life, after having failed in the first round of litigation. After the office Order dated 24.10.2008 was issued by the Chief Justice prescribing the qualifications for direct recruitment/promotion to various posts, the contesting respondents got promoted as Head Assistants on 24.11.2008 only because suitable eligible candidates were not available. Their appointments were set aside in Writ Petition No.1751 of 2008. The appeals filed against the said Order in LPA Nos.45 and 84 of 2010 were also dismissed. 23. It is only after their promotion was set aside in the first writ petition filed by the qualified candidates, that the contesting respondents woke up from the slumber and initiated a second round of litigation by challenging the Order of the Chief Justice. 24. As a matter of fact, the Order of promotion dated 24.11.2008 promoting the contesting respondents as Head Assistants made it clear that their appointments were only till eligible and suitable candidates are posted to these posts and that they can be 11
considered for regularisation/appointment only if they attain the qualification and experience prescribed for the post. But the contesting respondents did not choose to challenge the Order of Chief Justice dated 24.10.2008, until the writ petition filed against their promotion was allowed by the single Judge and the Order also got confirmed in writ appeal by the Division Bench. 25. If we come to the grounds of attack to the impugned order of the Chief Justice, it is clear that the power of the Chief Justice clearly flowed out of Rule 6 of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968. These Rules were issued by the High Court in exercise of the power conferred by Section 108(2) of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. These Rules had the approval of the Governor also. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the office order issued by the Chief Justice was ultra vires , is completely untenable. 26. The CCA Rules, 1956 will have only limited application to the employees of the High Court. These Rules, by themselves, do not stipulate the qualifications required for appointment to any particular post in the High Court. Rule 18 of the CCA Rules relied 12
upon by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents reads as follows: “ 18. Special Qualification No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service, class, category or grade or any post on the cadre thereof unless he (a) Possesses such qualification and has passed such special tests as may be prescribed in that behalf by the Government, or (b) Possesses such other qualification as may be considered by the Government to be equivalent to the said special qualifications or special tests.” 27. But the above Rule has no application to the staff of the High Court, as Section 108(2) of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir leaves this issue to the High Court. 28. Similarly Rule 5 of the CCA Rules on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, also has no application to the case on hand. This Rule 5 reads as follows: “ 5. Relaxation of rules Any of these rules made under them, may for reasons to be recorded in writing, be relaxed by the Government in individual cases if Government is satisfied that a strict application of the rule would cause hardship to the individual concerned or confer undue benefit on him.” 13
29. In so far as the staff of the High Court are concerned, Rule 5 has no application. When the Rule making power is vested with the High Court (subject to the approval of the Governor) and when the Chief Justice is specifically empowered to prescribe the qualifications and method of recruitment, the CCA Rules which are general in nature cannot be replicated. 30. The High Court was wrong in thinking that Note2 of the Order of the Chief Justice curtailed or restricted the power of relaxation available with him. If the authority conferred with the power to relax, chooses to regulate the manner of exercise of his own power, the same cannot be assailed as arbitrary. The notification dated 25.04.1987 prescribed for the first time, graduation as a necessary qualification. This is why, the Chief Justice chose by his Order, to limit his own power of relaxation to cases where appointments were made before the cut off date. 31. The contention that the Order of the Chief Justice affects the staff adversely with retrospective effect, is completely incorrect. The Order dated 24.10.2008 did not at all impact the promotions gained by persons upto 24.10.2008. We are concerned in this case with the 14
competing claims of the appellants and the contesting respondents for promotion to the post of Head Assistant. The entitlement of unqualified candidates to seek promotion to the post of Head Assistant after 24.10.2008, is what was impacted by the Order of the Chief Justice. 32. The High Court erred in thinking that the impugned action of the Chief Justice violated Article 14 by creating a distinction between graduates and non graduates among the same category of persons who constituted a homogenous class. 33. Way Back in 1968, the Constitution Bench of this Court held in the State of Mysore & Anr. vs. P. Narasinga Rao 1 , that Article 16(1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable test for their selection. It was further held that the provisions of Article 14 or Article 16 do not exclude the laying down of selective tests nor do they preclude the Government from laying down qualifications for the post in question. Despite the fact that the competing parties who were before this Court in the said case were employed as Tracers, carrying out the same duties and 1
AIR 1968 SC 349 15
responsibilities, the Bench held in that case that the classification of Tracers, into two types with different grades of pay, on the basis that one type consisted of matriculates and the other non matriculates, is not violative of Articles 14 and 16. Again in State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors . 2 , another Constitution Bench considered the question whether persons drawn from different sources and integrated into one class can be classified on the basis of their educational qualifications for promotion. The Constitution Bench answered the question in the affirmative holding that the Rule providing for graduates to be eligible for promotion to the exclusion of diploma holders is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 34. In T.R. Kothandaraman vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board 3 , the legal position in this regard was summarised as follows: (i) Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification, acceptability of which will depend on the facts and circumstances; (ii) Higher educational qualification can 2
(1974) 1 SCC 19 3
(1994) 6 SCC 282 16
be the basis not only for barring promotion, but also for restricting the scope of promotion; (iii) restriction placed cannot however go to the extent of seriously jeopardising the chances of promotion. 35. As pointed out in T.R.Kothandaraman (supra), the Court shall have to be conscious about the need for maintaining efficiency in service, while judging the validity of the classification. Though the High Court took note of these decisions, the High Court fell into an error in thinking that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court could not establish the necessity for higher qualification for the efficient discharge of the functions of higher posts. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the non graduates have had opportunities to qualify themselves, which they have also done. Therefore, the prescription of graduation as a qualification for promotion to the post of Head Assistant cannot be held as violative of Articles 14 and 16. 36. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. However, in view of the fact that the contesting respondents have been working in the post of Head Assistants for quite some time and have also 17
acquired the necessary qualifications, they need not be reverted at this stage. But the seniority of the appellants vis a vis the contesting respondents shall be based on the dates of acquisition of such qualification and the length of service taken together. In other words, the seniority of the contesting respondents will be decided not on the basis of the date of their promotion but on the basis of the date of their acquiring the qualification while occupying the promoted posts. There will be no order as to costs. 37. In so far as the Contempt Petitions are concerned, no further orders are necessary in view of the Orders passed in the appeals and the directions issued therein. Hence they are closed. ……………………………..CJI (S.A. BOBDE) ……………………………….J. (A.S. BOPANNA) ………………………………..J. (V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN) New Delhi January 18, 2021 18
ITEM NO.22 Court No.1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).5189-5192/2017 ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS ETC.ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No. 71489/2020 - APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF INTERIM ORDER and IA No. 71491/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 392-395/2019 in C.A. No. 5189-5192/2017 (XVI-A) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.33060/2019-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 14-12-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Z . A Shah, Sr. Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat, AOR Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Pachananda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Avni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Ms. Shashi Juneja, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Keshav Thakur, Adv. Mr. Saket Grover, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. (SANJAY KUMAR-II) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1 ITEM NO.2+10 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5189-5192/2017 ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS ETC.ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 71489/2020 - APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF INTERIM ORDER IA No. 71491/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) WITH CONT.PET.(CIVIL) NO. 392-395 OF 2019 IN C.A.NOS. 5189-5192 OF 2017 (FOR ADMISSION AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 02-12-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Keshav Thakur,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan,Adv. Mr. Saket Grover,Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Gaurav Pachananda,Sr.Adv. Ms. Avni Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha,Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Ms. Shashi Juneja,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Jawad Ahmad, Registrar General of the High Court of
2 J&K is impleaded as a party respondent. By consent of the parties, list the appeals as well as Contempt Petition next week for final hearing. (MADHU BALA) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 392-395/2019 in C.A. No. 5189-5192/2017 SHAKEEL AHMAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANJAY DHAR Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.33060/2019-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ) Date : 10-02-2020 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Adv. Mr. Pravesh Thakur, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Ms. Avni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these petitions on a non-miscellaneous day after four weeks. Until further orders, personal appearance of the alleged contemnor-respondent is dispensed with . In the meantime, rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed by the petitioners. (SANJAY KUMAR-II) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) AR CUM PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) Nos.392-395/2019 in C.A. Nos.5189-5192/2017 SHAKEEL AHMAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANJAY DHAR Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.33060/2019-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ) Date : 11-03-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER For Petitioner(s) Mr. Keshav Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. (SANJAY KUMAR-II) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) Nos. 392-395/2019 in C.A. Nos. 5189-5192/2017 SHAKEEL AHMAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANJAY DHAR Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.33060/2019-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ) Date : 01-03-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter stands adjourned by one week. (SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR-CUM-PS BRANCH OFFICER
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI -A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5189-5192/2017 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ON IA 1/2017 and IA No.5197/2018-CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Date : 09-02-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Appellant(s) Ms. Purnima Bhat, AOR Mr. Pati Raj Yadav,Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Ms. Fauzia Shakil,Adv. Mr. Ujjwal singh,Adv. Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan,Adv. Mr. R.A. Jan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Mr. sunando Rama,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl,Adv. Mr. T.V. Bhaskar Reddy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 states that an endeavour would be made to resolve the matter in house. Liberty is sought for the said purpose. We see no impediment in an endeavour to so resolve the matter on account of the present appeal. List the matter after four weeks. (OM PARKASH SHARMA) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER
CA 5189-5192/2017 1 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IA No. 117247/2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5189-5192/2017 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. Appellants VERSUS STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. Respondents (FOR EARLY HEARING) Date : 24-11-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Appellant(s) Ms. Purnima Bhat, AOR Mr. Pati Raj Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Mr. R.A. Jan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, Adv. Ms. Sunanda Raha, Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Adv. Mr. Amit K. Nain, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The prayer for early hearing stands rejected. Liberty is granted to file a fresh application after three months. (Deepak Guglani) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Assistant Registrar
ITEM NO.74 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. SANJAY PARIHAR Civil Appeal No(s). 5189-5192/2017 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for directions and interim relief and office report) Date : 08/05/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Sunando Raha,Adv. Mr. Krishna Bhatt,Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld. Counsel for the parties have failed to file the statement of case within the statutory period. Filing of Statement of Case is not mandatory as per amended Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court on its own turn. (SANJAY PARIHAR) Registrar MG
SECTION XVIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Listed on : 8.5.2017 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Ld. Registrar Court: 2 Item No.: 79 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5189 – 5192 OF 2017 IN PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NOS. 1360713610 OF 2016 ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. ...Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT OR PRE FINAL HEARING These are appeals by Special Leave Petition granted by this Hon'ble Court on 10 th April, 2017 against the final judgement and order dated 16 th April, 2016 in LPA No. 170 of 2013, LPA No. 209 of 2013, LPA No. 210 of 2013 and LPA No. 36 of 2016 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar. There are 7 Respondentds in Civil Appeal No. 5189 of 2017 4 each in Civial Appeal 5190 & 5191 and 10 respondents in Civil Appeal 5192 of 2017. All the respondent are either represented or have been served at Special Leave Petition stage. It is submitted that Counsel for both the parties have not filed Statement of case so far. Service of Notice of Lodgement Petition for Appeal is complete. The matters above mentioned are listed before the Ld. Registrar Court with this Office Report. Dated this the 5 th Day of May, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocate Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Advocate Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocate Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR kom
lITEM NO.74 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. SANJAY PARIHARCivil Appeal No(s). 5189-5192/2017ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for directions and interim relief and office report)Date : 08/05/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Sunando Raha,Adv. Mr. Krishna Bhatt,Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLd. Counsel for the parties have failed to file the statementof case within the statutory period. Filing of Statement of Case isnot mandatory as per amended Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Viewedthus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'bleCourt on its own turn. (SANJAY PARIHAR) RegistrarMG
ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13607-13610/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 170/2013, LPA No. 209/2013, LPA No. 210/2013 and LPA No. 36/2016 passed by the High Court Of Jammu&kashmir At Srinagar) ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for directions and interim relief and office report) Date : 10/04/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER For Petitioner(s) M r. M. Shoeb Alam,Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil,Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh,Adv. Mr. Mojahi d Karim Khan,Adv. Mr. Z.A. Shah,Sr.Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. Mr. Pati Raj Yadav,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. Mr. Shishir Pinaki,Adv. Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl,Adv. Mr. Katubadi Ismail,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Hearing expedited. [O.P. SHARMA] [RAJINDER KAUR] AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
SECTION XVIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Listed on : 10.04.2017 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Court No. : 3 Item No.: 53 PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NOS. 1360713610 OF 2016 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF WITH INTELOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 14 OF 2017 (Application for directions) ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. ...Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 13 th May, 2016 when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Issue notice. Some of the respondents have entered appearance on caveat. Mr. Anupam Raina, Adv. appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 and accepts notice. Notice shall issue to the remaining respondents. Counter affidavit by the respondents be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. Post after the pleadings are complete. There shall be interim stay of the impugned order passed by the High Court. ” Accordingly notice was issued to Respondent No. 2 in SLP(C) No. 13607, 13608, 13609, 13610 of 2016 through Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate to Respondent No. 4, 6 & 7 in SLP(C) No. 13607 of 2016 through caveator advocate Mr. R.P. Gupta and to the remaining respondent through registered A.D. post on 25 th May, 2016 and to Respondent No. 3 in SLP(C) No. 13608 of 2016, Respondent No. 3 & 4 in SLP(C) No. 13609 of 2016 and Respondent No. 3 to 10 in SLP(C) No. 13610 of 2016 through registered A.D. post on 2 nd December, 2016 as well as dasti on 1 st December, 2016 pursuant to Ld. Registrar's Court's Order dated 18 th November, 2016. Contd...2/
2 Service position in the matters is as follows: SLP(C) NO. 13607 OF 2016 There are 7 respondents in the matter. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 37 are represented by Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Mr. Anupam Raina, and Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocates respectively but they have not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. SLP(C) NO. 13608 OF 2016 There are 4 respondents in the matter. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, 4 are represented by Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Mr. Anupam Raina and Mr. D.Mahesh Babu, Advocates respectively but they have not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. SLP(C) NO. 13609 OF 2016 There are 4 respondents in the matter. Respondent No. 1 & 2 are represented by Mr. M. Shoeb Alam and Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocates respectively but they have not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. It is submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has on 16 th January, 2017 filed affidavit alongwith proof of dasti service on respondent nos. 3 & 4 that notice has been served upon them but no one has entered appearance on their behalf so far. SLP(C) NO. 13610 OF 2016 There are 10 respondents in the matter. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are represented by Mr. M. Shoeb Alam and Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocates respectively but they have not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. It is submitted that the Counsel for the petitioner has on 16 th January, 2017 filed affidavit alongwith proof of dasti service on respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 that notice has been served upon them but no one has entered appearance on their behalf so far. It is further submitted that service of notice is complete on Respondent No. 8 through track report but no one has entered appearance on their behalf so far. Thereafter, the matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 17 th February, 2017 when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: Contd..3/
3 “In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the respondentState seeking adjournment, the matter is adjourned for four weeks.” It is submitted that Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Counsel for the petitioner has on 21 st March, 2017 filed an application for directions after serving its copy on the other side which has been registered as Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2017. Copy of the same is being circulated herewith for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. Service of notice is complete on all the respondents in all the four matters. The matters alongwith applications above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. Dated this the 7 th Day of April, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocate Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Advocate Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocate Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Rm
\202ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13607-13610/2016(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/04/2016in LPA No. 170/2013, LPA No. 209/2013, LPA No. 210/2013 and LPA No.36/2016 passed by the High Court Of Jammu&kashmir At Srinagar)ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for directions and interim relief and office report)Date : 10/04/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEERFor Petitioner(s) M r. M. Shoeb Alam,Adv.Ms. Fauzia Shakil,Adv.Mr. Ujjwal Singh,Adv.Mr. Mojahi d Karim Khan,Adv.Mr. Z.A. Shah,Sr.Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv.Mr. Pati Raj Yadav,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv.Mr. Shishir Pinaki,Adv.Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl,Adv.Mr. Katubadi Ismail,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLeave granted. Hearing expedited.[O.P. SHARMA] [RAJINDER KAUR] AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13607-13610/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 170/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 209/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 210/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 36/2016 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 52/2014 passed by the High Court Of Jammu&kashmir At Srinagar) ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 17/02/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER For Petitioner(s) Mr. M Shoeb Alam,Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Singh, Adv. Mr. M.D.Karim Khan, Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. Mr. Pati Raj Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Adv. Mr. T.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the respondent-State seeking adjournment, the matter is adjourned for four weeks. (Shashi Sareen) (Rajinder Kaur ) AR-cum-PS Court Master
SECTION XVIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Listed on : 17.02.2017 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Court No. : 3 Item No.: 47 PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NOS. 1360713610 OF 2016 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. ...Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 13 th May, 2016 when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Issue notice. Some of the respondents have entered appearance on caveat. Mr. Anupam Raina, Adv. appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 and accepts notice. Notice shall issue to the remaining respondents. Counter affidavit by the respondents be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. Post after the pleadings are complete. There shall be interim stay of the impugned order passed by the High Court. ” Accordingly notice was issued to Respondent No. 2 in SLP(C) No. 13607, 13608, 13609, 13610 of 2016 through Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate to Respondent No. 4, 6 & 7 in SLP(C) No. 13607 of 2016 through caveator advocate Mr. R.P. Gupta and to the remaining respondent through registered A.D. post on 25 th May, 2016 and to Respondent No. 3 in SLP(C) No. 13608 of 2016, Respondent No. 3 & 4 in SLP(C) No. 13609 of 2016 and Respondent No. 3 to 10 in SLP(C) No. 13610 of 2016 through registered A.D. post on 2 nd December, 2016 as well as dasti on 1 st December, 2016 pursuant to Ld. Registrar's Order dated 18 th November, 2016 Service position in the matters is as follows: SLP(C) NO. 13607 OF 2016 There are 7 respondents in the matter. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 37 are represented by Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Mr. Anupam Raina, and Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocates respectively but they have not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. Contd...2/
2 SLP(C) NO. 13608 OF 2016 There are 4 respondents in the matter. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, 4 are represented by Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Mr. Anupam Raina and Mr. D.Mahesh Babu, Advocates respectively but they have not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. SLP(C) NO. 13609 OF 2016 There are 4 respondents in the matter. Respondent No. 1 & 2 are represented by Mr. M. Shoeb Alam and Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocates respectively but they have not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. It is submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has on 16 th January, 2017 filed affidavit alongwith proof of dasti service on respondent nos. 3 & 4 that notice has been served upon them but no one has entered appearance on their behalf so far. SLP(C) NO. 13610 OF 2016 There are 10 respondents in the matter. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are represented by Mr. M. Shoeb Alam and Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocates respectively but they have not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. It is submitted that the Counsel for the petitioner has on 16 th January, 2017 filed affidavit alongwith proof of dasti service on respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 that notice has been served upon them but no one has entered appearance on their behalf so far. It is further submitted that service of notice is complete on Respondent No. 8 through track report but no one has entered appearance on their behalf so far. Service of notice is complete on all the respondents in all the four matters. Pursuant to Ld. Registrar's Court Order dated 4 th January, 2017, the matters above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. Dated this the 14 th Day of February, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocate Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Advocate Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocate Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Rm
JITEM NO.47 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13607-13610/2016(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/04/2016in LPA No. 170/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 209/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 210/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 36/2016 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 52/2014 passed by the High Court Of Jammu&kashmir At Srinagar)ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s)(with interim relief and office report)Date : 17/02/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEERFor Petitioner(s) Mr. M Shoeb Alam,Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Singh, Adv. Mr. M.D.Karim Khan, Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. Mr. Pati Raj Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Adv. Mr. T.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel forthe respondent-State seeking adjournment, the matter is adjournedfor four weeks.(Shashi Sareen) (Rajinder Kaur ) AR-cum-PS Court Master
ITEM NO.79 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13607-13610/2016 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 04/01/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms.Astha Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr.Amit K.Nain,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) Nos.13607/2016 The matter has already been directed to be listed before the Hon'ble Court. Hence, list accordingly. SLP(C) Nos.13608/2016 The respondent Nos.1 & 2 have failed to file the counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules. Service of notice is complete on the respondent Nos.3 & 4, but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. ….......2
ITEM NO.79 -2- SC13607-13610/2016 SLP(C) Nos.13609 & 13610/2016 The office report indicates that service of notice is complete on the respondents in both matters, but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Viewed thus, the matters shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. (M V RAMESH) Registrar SB
SECTION XVIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Listed on : 04.01.2017 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Court No. : R2 Item No.: 79 PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NOS. 1360713610 OF 2016 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. ...Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court on 18 th November, 2016 when he was pleased to pass the following Order: “ SLP(C) No. 13607/2016 All the respondents have failed to file the counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court on its own turn. SLP(C) No. 13608/2016 Ld. Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to file the counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules. Service of notice is complete on the respondent No. 4 but no one has entered appearance on his behalf. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of four weeks file spare copy for issuance of fresh notice in respect of respondent No.3.Dasti in addition is permitted to be served. In the meantime, office shall enquire about the fate of notice sent to the said respondent under registered cover from the postal authorities. SLP(C) No. 13609/2016 Service of notice is complete on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of four weeks file spare copy for issuance of fresh notice in respect of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Dasti in addition is permitted to be served. In the meantime, office shall enquire about the fate of notices sent to the said respondents under registered cover from the postal authorities. SLP(C) No. 13610/2016 Service of notice is complete on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Contd...2/
-2- Ld. Counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of four weeks file spare copy for issuance of fresh notice in respect of respondent Nos.3 to 10. Dasti in addition is permitted to be served. In the meantime, office shall enquire about the fate of notices sent to the said respondents under registered cover from the postal authorities. List again on 4.01.2017. ” Accordingly due course notice to unserved Respondent No. 3 in SLP(C) No. 13608 of 2016, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in SLP(C) No. 13609 of 2016 and Respondent Nos. 310 in SLP(C) No. 13610 of 2016 was issued through registered A.D. post on 2 nd December, 2016 as well as dasti on 1 st December, 2016. It is submitted that duly signed A.D. card have been received from Respondent No. 3 in SLP(C) No. 13608 of 2016 and Respondent No. 3, 4 & 9 in SLP(C) No. 13610 of 2016 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf so far and as per track report downloaded from postal site notice has been delivered at Srinagar GPO in respect of Respondent No. 3 in SLP(C) No. 13609 of 2016, Respondent Nos. 7 & 10 in SLP(C) No. 13610 of 2016. It is further submitted that a letter to postal authorities was issued on 24 th November, 2016 and as per track report received from postal authorities notice has been delivered at Srinagar GPO in respect of Respondent No. 4 in SLP(C) No. 13609 of 2016 and Respondent No. 5, 6 & 8 in SLP(C) No. 13610 of 2016. It is also submitted that Counsel for the Petitioner has not filed affidavit alongwith proof of dasti notice so far. It is further submitted that service of notice is complete on Respondent No. 4 in SLP(C) No. 13608 of 2016 and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in SLP(C) No. 13610 of 2016 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf so far. The matter above mentioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar’s Court with this Office Report. Dated this the 3 rd Day of January, 2017 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocate Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Advocate Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocate Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Rm
,ITEM NO.79 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13607-13610/2016ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s)(with interim relief and office report)Date : 04/01/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Astha Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr.Amit K.Nain,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) Nos.13607/2016The matter has already been directed to be listed before theHon'ble Court. Hence, list accordingly.SLP(C) Nos.13608/2016The respondent Nos.1 & 2 have failed to file the counteraffidavit within the period stipulated under the rules.Service of notice is complete on the respondent Nos.3 & 4, butno one has entered appearance on their behalf.Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing beforethe Hon'ble Court as per rules.⬠¦.......2ITEM NO.79 -2- SC13607-13610/2016SLP(C) Nos.13609 & 13610/2016 The office report indicates that service of notice is completeon the respondents in both matters, but no one has enteredappearance on their behalf. Viewed thus, the matters shall beprocessed for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarSB
Item No.81 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) 13607-13610/2016 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 18/11/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Astha Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr. Amit K. Nain,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 13607/2016 All the respondents have failed to file the counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court on its own turn . SLP(C) No. 13608/2016 Ld. Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to file the counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules. S ervice of notice is complete on the respondent No. 4 but no one
Item No.81 2 has entered appearance on his behalf. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of four weeks file spare copy for issuance of fresh notice in respect of respondent No.3.Dasti in addition is permitted to be served. In the meantime, office shall enquire about the fate of notice sent to the said respondent under registered cover from the postal authorities. SLP(C) No. 13609/2016 S ervice of notice is complete on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of four weeks file spare copy for issuance of fresh notice in respect of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Dasti in addition is permitted to be served. In the meantime, office shall enquire about the fate of notices sent to the said respondents under registered cover from the postal authorities. SLP(C) No. 13610/2016 S ervice of notice is complete on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of four weeks file spare copy for issuance of fresh notice in respect of respondent Nos.3 to 10. Dasti in addition is permitted to be served. In the meantime, office shall enquire about the fate of notices sent to the said respondents under registered cover from the postal authorities. List again on 4.01.2017 . (M V RAMESH) Registrar MG
LISTED ON : 18.11.2016 COURT NO. : R2 ITEM No. : 81 SECTION XVIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) Nos. 13607610 OF 2016 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF A SHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. ....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. .....Respondents OFFICE REPORT The Special Leave Petition above mentioned was listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court on 6 th October, 2016 when he was pleased to pass the following Order: “ SLP(C) No. 13607/2016 Four weeks time, as a last chance, is given to all the respondents to file the counter affidavit. After expiry of four weeks, list the matter before the Hon'ble Court. SLP(C) No. 13608/2016 Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are granted four weeks time, as a last chance, to file the counter affidavit. Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the respondent nos. 3 and 4. List the matter on 18.11.2016. SLP(C) NO. 13609/2016 Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are common in connected SLP(C) No. 13608/2016 and are represented by Mr. Anupam Raina, Ld. Advocate. Therefore, service is deemed to be complete in respect of these respondents in this matter also. List the matter on 18.11.2016. SLP(C) No. 13610/2016 Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the respondent nos. 3 to 10. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are common in connected SLP(C) No. 13608/2016 and are represented by Mr. Anupam Raina, Ld. Advocate. Therefore, service is deemed to be complete in respect of these respondents in this matter also. List the matter on 18.11.2016. ” C ontd..2/
2 SLP(C) No. 13607 OF 2016 It is submitted that Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Mr. Anupam Raina and Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 37 respectively have not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. SLP(C) No. 13608 OF 2016 It is submitted that Mr. Anupam Raina, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2 has not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. It is further submitted that duly signed A.D. card has been received from Respondent No. 4 but no one has entered apperance on his behalf so far. It is also submitted that neither A.D. card nor unserved cover containing the notice issued to Respondent No. 3 has been received back till date. Service of notice is not complete on Respondent No. 3. SLP(C) No. 13609 OF 2016 It is submitted that Mr. Anupam Raina, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2 has not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. It is further submitted that neither A.D. card nor unserved cover containing the notice issued to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been received back till date. Service of notice is not complete on Respondent Nos. 3. and 4. SLP(C) No. 13610 OF 2016 It is submitted that Mr. Anupam Raina, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2 has not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. It is further submitted that neither A.D. card nor unserved cover containing the notice issued to Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 has been received back till date. Service of notice is not complete on Respondent Nos. 3. to 10 The matter abovementioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court with this office report. Dated this the 15 th day of November, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocate Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Mahesh Babu Gupta, Advocate Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm
¨Item No.81 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) 13607-13610/2016ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s)(with interim relief and office report)Date : 18/11/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Astha Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr. Amit K. Nain,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) No. 13607/2016All the respondents have failed to file the counter affidavitwithin the period stipulated under the rules. Viewed thus, thematter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court onits own turn . SLP(C) No. 13608/2016Ld. Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to filethe counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules.S ervice of notice is complete on the respondent No. 4 but no oneItem No.81 2has entered appearance on his behalf. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of fourweeks file spare copy for issuance of fresh notice in respect ofrespondent No.3.Dasti in addition is permitted to be served.In the meantime, office shall enquire about the fate of noticesent to the said respondent under registered cover from the postalauthorities. SLP(C) No. 13609/2016S ervice of notice is complete on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 butno one has entered appearance on their behalf. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of fourweeks file spare copy for issuance of fresh notice in respect ofrespondent Nos.3 and 4. Dasti in addition is permitted to beserved.In the meantime, office shall enquire about the fate ofnotices sent to the said respondents under registered cover fromthe postal authorities. SLP(C) No. 13610/2016S ervice of notice is complete on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 butno one has entered appearance on their behalf. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of fourweeks file spare copy for issuance of fresh notice in respect ofrespondent Nos.3 to 10. Dasti in addition is permitted to beserved.In the meantime, office shall enquire about the fate ofnotices sent to the said respondents under registered cover fromthe postal authorities.List again on 4.01.2017 . (M V RAMESH) RegistrarMG
ITEM NO.81 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13607-13610/2016 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 06/10/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. Mr. Gagan, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 13607/2016 Four weeks time, as a last chance, is given to all the respondents to file the counter affidavit. After expiry of four weeks, list the matter before the Hon'ble Court. SLP(C) No. 13608/2016 Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are granted four weeks time, as a last chance, to file the counter affidavit. Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the respondent nos. 3 and 4. List the matter on 18.11.2016. Contd...2/-
Item No. 81 - 2 - SLP(C) NO. 13609/2016 Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are common in connected SLP(C) No. 13608/2016 and are represented by Mr. Anupam Raina, Ld. Advocate. Therefore, service is deemed to be complete in respect of these respondents in this matter also. List the matter on 18.11.2016. SLP(C) No. 13610/2016 Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the respondent nos. 3 to 10. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are common in connected SLP(C) No. 13608/2016 and are represented by Mr. Anupam Raina, Ld. Advocate. Therefore, service is deemed to be complete in respect of these respondents in this matter also. List the matter on 18.11.2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar PS
LISTED ON : 06.10.2016 COURT NO. : R2 ITEM No. : 81 SECTION XVIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) Nos. 13607610 OF 2016 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF A SHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. ....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. .....Respondents OFFICE REPORT The Special Leave Petition above mentioned was listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court on 18 th July, 2016 when he was pleased to pass the following Order: “ Served respondents have failed to file the counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules. Fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to the unserved respondents shall be taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners within a period of four weeks. On behalf of Respondent No.2 Mr. Anupam Raina, Ld. Counsel has accepted notice before the Hon'ble Court on 13.5.2016 but till date he has not filed the vakalatnama and the counter affidavit. Today Ld. Counsel has appeared before this Court and has expressed his inability in filing the same due to curfew in the State and he seeks further time for filing the same. He may do so in the meantime. List again on 6.10.2016.” SLP(C) No. 13607 OF 2016 There are 7 Respondents in the matter abovementioned. It is submitted that Mr. Sunil Fernandes and Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocates have on 29 th August, 2016 and 21 st September, 2016 filed Vakalatnama and Memo of apperance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively but have not filed Counter affidavit on their behalf so far. Contd..2/
2 It is also submitted that Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 37 have not filed Counter affidavit till date. Service of notice is complete. SLP(C) No. 13608 OF 2016 There are 4 respondents in the matter above mentioned. It is submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate but he has not filed Counter affidavit on their behalf so far. It is further submitted that notice to unserved respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was issued through registered A.D. post on 23 rd September, 2016 and as per track report downloaded from postal site notice has not been delivered upon Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is also submitted that neither A.D. card nor unserved cover containing the notice has been received back from Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Service of notice is not complete on Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. SLP(C) No. 13609 OF 2016 There are 4 respondents in the matter above mentioned. It is submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are common Respondent in SLP(C) No. 13608 of 2016 and represented by Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate. It is further submitted that notice to unserved respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was issued through registered A.D. post on 23 rd September, 2016 and as per track report downloaded from postal site notice has not been delivered upon Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is also submitted that neither A.D. card nor unserved cover containing the notice has been received back from Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Service of notice is not complete on Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. SLP(C) No. 13610 OF 2016 There are 10 respondents in the matter above mentioned. It is submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are common Respondent in SLP(C) No. 13609 of 2016 and represented by Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate. It is further submitted that notice to unserved respondent Nos. 3 to 10 was issued through registered A.D. post on 23 rd September, 2016 and as per track report downloaded from postal site notice has not been delivered upon Respondent Nos. 3 to 10. Contd...3/
3 It is also submitted that neither A.D. card nor unserved cover containing the notice has been received back from Respondent Nos. 3 to 10. Service of notice is not complete on Respondent Nos. 3 to 10. The matter abovementioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court with this office report. Dated this the 4 th day of October, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocate Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Mahesh Babu Gupta, Advocate Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm
&ITEM NO.81 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13607-13610/2016ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s)(with interim relief and office report)Date : 06/10/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. Mr. Gagan, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) No. 13607/2016Four weeks time, as a last chance, is given to all therespondents to file the counter affidavit. After expiry of fourweeks, list the matter before the Hon'ble Court.SLP(C) No. 13608/2016Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are granted four weeks time, as a lastchance, to file the counter affidavit. Await the return of the service of notice already issued tothe respondent nos. 3 and 4. List the matter on 18.11.2016.Contd...2/-Item No. 81 - 2 -SLP(C) NO. 13609/2016Await the return of the service of notice already issued tothe respondent nos. 3 and 4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are common in connected SLP(C) No.13608/2016 and are represented by Mr. Anupam Raina, Ld. Advocate.Therefore, service is deemed to be complete in respect of theserespondents in this matter also. List the matter on 18.11.2016.SLP(C) No. 13610/2016Await the return of the service of notice already issued tothe respondent nos. 3 to 10. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are common in connected SLP(C) No.13608/2016 and are represented by Mr. Anupam Raina, Ld. Advocate.Therefore, service is deemed to be complete in respect of theserespondents in this matter also. List the matter on 18.11.2016. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarPS
Item No. 112 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13607-13610/2016 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 29/08/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Gunwant Dara,Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr. R. P. Gupta,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Ad. Mr. Amit K. Nair,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Served respondents have failed to file the counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules. Fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to the unserved respondents shall be taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners within a period of four weeks. On behalf of Respondent No.2 Mr. Anupam Raina, Ld. Counsel has accepted notice before the Hon'ble Court on 13.5.2016 but till date he has not filed the vakalatnama and the counter affidavit. Today Ld. Counsel has appeared before this Court and has expressed his inability in filing the same due to curfew in the State and he seeks further time for filing the same. He may do so in the meantime. List again on 6.10. 2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar MG
LISTED ON : 29.08.2016 COURT NO. : R2 ITEM No. : 112 SECTION XVIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) Nos. 13607610 OF 2016 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF A SHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. ....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. .....Respondents OFFICE REPORT The Special Leave Petition above mentioned was listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court on 18 th July, 2016 when he was pleased to pass the following Order: “ SLP(C) No. 13607/2016 Mr. Puneeth K.G., Ld. Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1. He seeks and is given two weeks time to file the vakalatnama and four weeks time to file the counter affidavit. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 had accepted notice before the Hon'ble Court on 13.5.2016 but has failed to file the vakalatnama. The same shall be reported to the Hon'ble Court as and when the matter will be listed. The served respondents shall be at liberty to file the counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. SLP(C) Nos.13608,13609 and 13610 of 2016 Respondent No.1 in SLP(C) Nos.13608/ 2016,Respondent No.2 in SLP(C) No.13609/2016 and 13610/2016 accepted notice before the Hon'ble Court on 13.5.2016 but has failed to file the vakalatnama. The same shall be reported to the Hon'ble Court as and when the matter will be listed. Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the other respondents. List again on 29.8.2016.” Contd...2/
2 The Service postion of the matter is as follows: S.NO. SLP NOS. REMARKS 1. SLP (c) No. 13607 OF 2016 It is submitted that Mr. Puneeth K.G., Advocate though appeared on behalf of Respondent no. 1 but has not filed Vakalatnama and Memo of appearance on his behalf so far. It is further submitted that Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate though accepted notice on behalf of Respondent no. 2 but has not filed Vakalatnama and Memo of appearance on his behalf till date. It is also submitted that Mr. R.P. Gupta and Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocate for Respondent nos. 4, 6, 7 and 3, 5 have not filed Counter affidavit till date. It is submitted that neither A.D. card nor unserved cover containing the notice has been received back from Respondent no. 1. Service of notice is not complete on Respondent no. 1 and 2. 2. SLP (c) No. 13608 of 2016 There are 4 respondents in the matter. Respondent No. 1 is common Respondent No. 2 in SLP (C) No. 13607 of 2016. It is submitted that notices were issued to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 through Regd. A.D. Post on 25052016. It is further submitted that neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover containing the said notice has been received back from Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. 3. SLP (C) No. 13609 of 2016 There are 4 Respondents in the matter. Respondent No. 2 is common respondent No. 2 in SLP (C) No. 13607 of 2016. It is submitted that notices were issued to Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 through Regd. A.D. Post on 25052016. It is further submitted neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover containing the said notice has been received back from Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 4. SLP (C) No. 13610 of 2016 There are 10 respondents in the matter. Respondent No. 2 is common Respondent No. 2 in SLP (C) No. 13607 of 2016. It is submitted that notices were issued to Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to 10 through Regd. A.D. Post on 25052016. It is further submitted neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover containing the said notice has been received back from Respondent Nos. 1 &3 to 10 Service of notice is not complete on Respondent Nos. Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 . Contd....3/
\216Item No. 112 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13607-13610/2016ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s)(with interim relief and office report)Date : 29/08/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Gunwant Dara,Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. Mr. R. P. Gupta,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Ad. Mr. Amit K. Nair,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RServed respondents have failed to file the counter affidavitwithin the period stipulated under the rules. Fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to theunserved respondents shall be taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioners within a period of four weeks. On behalf of Respondent No.2 Mr. Anupam Raina, Ld. Counsel hasaccepted notice before the Honble Court on 13.5.2016 but till datehe has not filed the vakalatnama and the counter affidavit. TodayLd. Counsel has appeared before this Court and has expressed hisinability in filing the same due to curfew in the State and heseeks further time for filing the same. He may do so in themeantime.List again on 6.10. 2016. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarMG
Item No.111 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13607-13610/2016 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 18/07/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. R. P. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Puneeth K.G.,Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Nair,Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 13607/2016 Mr. Puneeth K.G., Ld. Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1. He seeks and is given two weeks time to file the vakalatnama and four weeks time to file the counter affidavit. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 had accepted notice before the Hon'ble Court on 13.5.2016 but has failed to file the vakalatnama. The same shall be reported to the Hon'ble Court as and when the matter will be listed.
Item No.111 2 The served respondents shall be at liberty to file the counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. SLP(C) Nos.13608,13609 and 13610 of 2016 Respondent No.1 in SLP(C) Nos.13608/ 2016,Respondent No.2 in SLP(C) No.13609/2016 and 13610/2016 accepted notice before the Hon'ble Court on 13.5.2016 but has failed to file the vakalatnama. The same shall be reported to the Hon'ble Court as and when the matter will be listed. Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the other respondent s. List again on 29 .8.2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar MG
SECTION XVI-A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA LISTED ON : 18-07-2016 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Reg. COURT NO. : 2 ITEM No. : 111 PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) Nos. 13607-610 OF 2016 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. ....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. .....Respondents OFFICE REPORT The Special Leave Petition above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 13-05-2016 when the Court was pleased to pass the following Order:- “ Issue notice. Some of the respondents have entered appearance on caveat. Mr. Anupam Raina, Adv. appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 and accepts notice. Notice shall issue to the remaining respondents. Counter affidavit by the respondents be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. Post after the pleadings are complete. There shall be interim stay of the impugned order passed by the High Court.” The Service postion of the matter is as follows:- S.NO. SLP NOS. REMARKS 1. SLP (c) No. 13607 OF 2016 There are 7 respondents in the matter. Respondent Nos. 4, 6, 7 are represented by Mr. R. P. Guptal, Advocate. It is submitted that notices were issued to Respondent No. 2 through Sh. Anupam Raina, Advocate and to Respondent Nos. 4, 6, 7 through Sh. R.P Gupta, and to Repsondent Nos. 1, 3 & 5 through Regd. A.D. Post on 25-05-2016. It is further submitted that neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover containing the said notice has been received back from Respondent No.1 till date. It is also submitted that Sh. Anupam Raina, Advocate though appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2 but has not filed Vakalatama and memo of appearance on his behalf so far. Contd...2/-
-2- It is submitted that Sh. R.P. Gupta, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4, 6, 7 has not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf so far. Hence no Rejoinder Affidavit. It is lastly submittd that Sh. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocate has on 14-07-2016 filed Vakalatama and Memo of appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 but has not filed Counter Affidavit on their behalf. 2. SLP (c) No. 13608 of 2016 There are 4 respondents in the matter. Respondent No. 1 is common Respondent No. 2 in SLP (C) No. 13607 of 2016. It is submitted that notices were issued to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 through Regd. A.D. Post on 25-05-2016. It is further submitted that neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover containing the said notice has been received back from Respondents Nos. 2 to 4. 3. SLP (C) No. 13609 of 2016 There are 4 Respondents in the matter. Respondent No. 2 is common respondent No. 2 in SLP (C) No. 13607 of 2016. It is submitted that notices were issued to Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 through Regd. A.D. Post on 25-05-2016. It is further submitted neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover containing the said notice has been received back from Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4. 4. SLP (C) No. 13610 of 2016 There are 10 respondents in the matter. Respondent No. 2 is common Respondent No. 2 in SLP (C) No. 13607 of 2016. It is submitted that notices were issued to Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to 10 through Regd. A.D. Post on 25-05-2016. It is further submitted neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover containing the said notice has been received back from Respondent Nos. 1 &3 to 10 Service of notice is not complete on Respondent Nos. Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to 10 . The matter above-mentioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar COurt with this office report. Dated this the 15 th day of July ,2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocate, Advocate Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate/Caveator Mr. Mahesh Babu, Gupta ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
¬Item No.111 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13607-13610/2016ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s)(with interim relief and office report)Date : 18/07/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. R. P. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Puneeth K.G.,Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Nair,Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) No. 13607/2016Mr. Puneeth K.G., Ld. Advocate has appeared on behalf of therespondent No. 1. He seeks and is given two weeks time to file thevakalatnama and four weeks time to file the counter affidavit.Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 had accepted notice beforethe Hon'ble Court on 13.5.2016 but has failed to file thevakalatnama. The same shall be reported to the Hon'ble Court asand when the matter will be listed.Item No.111 2The served respondents shall be at liberty to file the counteraffidavit within a period of four weeks.SLP(C) Nos.13608,13609 and 13610 of 2016Respondent No.1 in SLP(C) Nos.13608/ 2016,Respondent No.2 inSLP(C) No.13609/2016 and 13610/2016 accepted notice before theHon'ble Court on 13.5.2016 but has failed to file the vakalatnama.The same shall be reported to the Hon'ble Court as and when thematter will be listed.Await the return of the service of notice already issued tothe other respondent s. List again on 29 .8.2016. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarMG
1 ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13607-13610/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 36/2016 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 170/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 210/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 209/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 52/2014 passed by the High Court Of Jammu&kashmir At Srinagar) ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief) Date : 13/05/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Z.A.Shah, Sr. Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. Mr. Pati Raj Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Mehul M.Gupta, Adv. Ms. Nachiketa Suri, Adv. Mr. R.P. Gupta,Adv. For R-2 Mr. R.A.Jan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Some of the respondents have entered appearance on caveat. Mr. Anupam Raina, Adv. appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 and accepts notice.
2 Notice shall issue to the remaining respondents. Counter affidavit by the respondents be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. Post after the pleadings are complete. There shall be interim stay of the impugned order passed by the High Court. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
BY SPEED POST CAVEAT NOTICE MATTER LISTED ON:- 13-05-2016 SECTION XVI-A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA LISTED ON : 13-05-2016 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COURT NO. : 1 ITEM No. : 17 PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) Nos. 13607-610 OF 2016 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. ....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. .....Respondents To, Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate/Cavetor 8,Lawyers Chmabers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi- 110001 TAKE NOTICE THAT the Special Leave Petition above-mentioned seeking transfer of appeal against the impugned judgment and common order dated 16.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in LPA No. 170 of 2013, LPA No. 209 of 2013, LPA No. 210 of 2013 and LPA No. 36 of 2016 has been filed in this Registry on 04 th May, 2016 by Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocate on behalf of above named Petitoner. Dated this the 12 th day of May, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocate for the Petitioner. 28, Lawyer's Chmaber, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi- 110001 She is requested to serve copies of the neccessary documents on Mr. R.P. Gupta, Caveator who has entered caveat on behalf of the Respondents in this matter and to file proof of service in this Registry forthwith. MC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SECTION XVI-A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA LISTED ON : 13-05-2016 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COURT NO. : 1 ITEM No. : 17 PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) Nos. 13607-610 OF 2016 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. ....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. .....Respondents OFFICE REPORT The Special Leave Petition above mentioned has been filed by Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocate appeal against the impugned judgment and common order dated 16.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in LPA No. 170 of 2013, LPA No. 209 of 2013, LPA No. 210 of 2013 and LPA No. 36 of 2016. It is submitted tha t Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate has on 11-05-2016 filed caveat alongwith Vakalatnama and Memo of appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in SLP (C) No. 13607 of 2016. Notice to the Caveator has been issued on 12-05-2016. The matter above-mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 12 th day of May, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocate, Advocate Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate/Caveator ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Ô 1 ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13607-13610/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 36/2016 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 170/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 210/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 209/2013 16/04/2016 in LPA No. 52/2014 passed by the High Court Of Jammu&kashmir At Srinagar) ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief) Date : 13/05/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Z.A.Shah, Sr. Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. Mr. Pati Raj Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Mehul M.Gupta, Adv. Ms. Nachiketa Suri, Adv. Mr. R.P. Gupta,Adv. For R-2 Mr. R.A.Jan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMahabir SinghDate: 2016.05.13 Some of the respondents have entered appearance on caveat.17:14:06 ISTReason: Mr. Anupam Raina, Adv. appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 and accepts notice. 2 Notice shall issue to the remaining respondents. Counter affidavit by the respondents be filed within sixweeks.
Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. Post after the pleadings are complete. There shall be interim stay of the impugned order passedby the High Court.(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER