Ut of Jammu and Kashmir and Another Rural Development Department v. Karamat Ullah Malik

ORDER(ORAL) Sanjeev Kumar-J

CM No. 5558/2025

¶1Notice issued to the respondent through registered post on 19.09.2025 has not been received back served or un-served. Statutory period is over. The respondent is set ex-parte.

¶2The review petition filed by the petitioners is delayed by 96 days and, therefore, an application for condonation of delay.

¶3Despite notice, the respondent has chosen not to appear and, therefore, there is no opposition to the application filed. We have gone through the

Sr. No. 12

RP No: 36/2025 in

application, seeking condonation of delay and are satisfied that sufficient cause is shown, which prevented the petitioners from filing the review petition within prescribed period.

¶4The application is, therefore, allowed and delay in filing the review petition is condoned.

¶5Disposed of. RP No. 36/2025

¶1Through the medium of this petition, the petitioners are seeking review of our judgment dated 08.04.2025 passed by this Court in LPA No. 216/2024 titled as "UT of J&K and Ors. Vs. Karamat Ullah Malik".

¶2The impugned judgment is sought to be recalled primarily, on the ground, that the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal was dismissed by this Court without taking note of the fact that the petitioners had a strong case on merits.

¶3It is argued by Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG appearing for the petitioners that the respondent was not entitled to the amount, which has been granted by the Single Bench in terms of an order and judgment dated

28.05.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 2167/2021, as upheld by the Division Bench by dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the LPA No. 216/2024.

¶4Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the judgment impugned, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent on face of record which would persuade us to recall our concluded judgment passed on 08.04.2025 in LPA No. 216/2024.

RP No: 36/2025 in

¶5Apart from the fact that the petitioners had failed to explain the delay of 72 days in filing the appeal, but this Court had also adverted to the merits of the case and found that there was a clear admission on part of the petitioners, with regard to the work executed by the respondent. The payment claimed by the respondent was resisted only on the ground that the work was executed by the respondent without technical sanction/ administrative approval. This plea was not accepted by the Writ Court and same was the view of this Court while dismissing the application for condonation of delay.

¶6Viewed from any angle, we do not find it a fit case for recalling our concluded judgment which is more or less based on the admission of the petitioners before the writ Court.

¶7Dismissed.

(Sanjay Parihar)

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge

JAMMU

17.10.2025 Rahul

Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No

RP No. 36/2025 in HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No:- RP No. 36/2025 in CM No. 5557/2025 CM No. 5558/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 Uploaded on: 18.10.2025 1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, through its Administrative Secretary, Rural Development Department, Civil Secretariat, UT of J&K, Jammu/Srinagar. 2. Assistant Commissioner Development Rajouri. ....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate v/s Karmat ullah Malik S/o Ghulm Qadir R/o Chowkian Tehsil, Darhal District, Rajouri ...Respondent(s) Through:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE