Jammu and Kashmir High Court
LPA/293/2025 of MUDASIR AHMAD CHANDROO AND ANR. Vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ORS. (HOME) on 19 May 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (Through Virtual Mode) LPA No. 293/2025 in [SWP No. 318/2013] CM No. 7942/2025 Mudasir Ahmad Chandroo & Anr. …. Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shabir Ahmed Dar, Advocate. Vs Principal Secretary to Government & Ors.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
LPA No. 293/2025 in
[SWP No. 318/2013]
CM No. 7942/2025
Mudasir Ahmad Chandroo & Anr.
…. Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Shabir Ahmed Dar, Advocate.
Vs
Principal Secretary to Government &
Ors.
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. M. Qadri, Sr. AAG.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, 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
19.05.2026
1. The intra court appeal has been filed by the appellants, challenges an order dated 30.09.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge (Writ Court) of this Court, in CM No. 856/2023 in SWP No. 318/2013 titled ‘Mudasir Ahmad Chadroo and Ors V/S Principal Secretary and Ors’, whereby, the writ Court has dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 1817 days in filing of application for restoration of SWP No. 318/2013 which was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 01.02.2018.
2. The writ Court has elaborately considered the application and the explanation tendered therein. As a matter of fact, the contents of the application have been reproduced in paragraph 2 of the impugned order. The writ Court has rightly come to the conclusion that a huge delay of 1817 days has not sufficiently explained. The plea of the appellants that the earlier counsel failed to prosecute the writ petition diligently has not been accepted by the writ Court for the reason that the appellants have not been able to put forth any explanation Sr. No.36
2
as to why they did not enquire about the proceedings of the case for the five long years.
3. The changing of the counsel as rightly observed by the writ Court, is no ground to seek condonation of huge delay. For making out a case for condonation of delay, a party has to plead and demonstrate that it was prevented by a sufficient cause from preferring the appeal/application within the period of limitation.
4. We have gone through the application filed by the appellants before the learned Writ Court as also the order passed by the Tribunal, we are convinced that that the appellants have failed to demonstrate any cause much less a sufficient cause which could be said to have prevented them from filing the appeal within period of limitation.
5. This appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sanjay Parihar )
Judge (Sanjeev Kumar ) Judge
Jammu 19.05.2026 Javid Iqbal