Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CCP(S)/91/2026 of M/S SONA BRICK INDUSTRIES JIB THATHI UDHAMPUR TH ASHOK SHARMA Vs ASHWANI KUMAR, COMMISSIONER SECRETARY PDD AND OTHERS on 6 April 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CCP(S) No. 91/2026 In WP(C) No. 1788/2023 CM No. 1900/2026 M/s Sona Brick Industries JIB Thathi Udhampur …..Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Dhiraj Chowdhary, Advocate. Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CCP(S) No. 91/2026
In
WP(C) No. 1788/2023
CM No. 1900/2026
M/s Sona Brick Industries
JIB Thathi Udhampur
…..Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Dhiraj Chowdhary, Advocate.
Vs
Ashwani Kumar & Ors.
.….Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(06.04.2026)
01. The petitioner had invited disposal of its writ petition without adjudication on merits resulting in passing of an order dated 17.07.2023 with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s comprehensive representation within two weeks from the date of passing of order dated 17.07.2023.
02. It has taken the petitioner more than two and half years to count the expiry of two weeks as granted in terms of order dated 17.07.2023 to come to this Court bearing a cry that the respondents are in contempt. Serial No. 176 Supplementary List-I
2
CCP(S) No. 91/2026 In WP(C) No. 1788/2023
03. The respondents named in the contempt petition were not the officials at the helm of affairs when two weeks’ time was meant to operate for consideration of the petitioner’s representation and, therefore, even if there was a default of consideration at the end of the then incumbents of the posts by which reference the respondents were named, the present incumbents as named in the contempt petition cannot be held to account for non-compliance of the Court direction, as such, this Court finds this contempt petition to be meritless, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
04. Needless to say that the petitioner has self-earned this dismissal of his contempt petition by virtue of his continuing state of default with respect to compliance of the Court directions.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU
06.04.2026
Bunty
Bunty Kumar 2026.04.15 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document