Robkar v. Kumar Rajeev Ranjan

ORDER

14.10.2025

¶01The record reveals that the ROBKAR has been framed in SWP No. 1328/2015 by the Registry of this Court in pursuant to the order/judgment passed by this Court dated 30.05.2018, the relevant extract of which has been produced as under: "29. Before parting, I would like to record the contempt of Court that had the selection record been produced before this Court, when SWP No. 1918/97 was being heard, the matter would have been set at rest about two decades ago. Since the Service Selection Board as well as Deputy Commissioner, Jammu had failed to produce the record at the relevant time; the apathy of petitioner can be well gauzed that he has been suffering for more than twenty one years in contesting the litigation. When the petitioner first filed SWP No. 1918/1997 he was shown 36 years of age and now he must have crossed the age of 57 years; meaning thereby he spent a good period of his life in courts contesting litigation one after another for redressal of his genuine grievance. Since the delay caused was mainly on account of laxity on the part of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, forcing the petitioner to face four rounds of litigation and spending huge amount of contesting the litigation despite being an unemployed person, in such circumstances the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu is burdened with costs of rupees fifty thousand, to be deposited by him in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit, the same shall be released in favour of petitioner after proper verification and identification. It is made clear that in case the Deputy Commissioner fails to deposit the costs within the aforesaid period. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to frame a separate robkar against him, after issuance of notice to him, list the same before the Court." S. No. 159

¶02As per the note of the Registry, it is apparent that by virtue of the aforesaid direction, four weeks' time granted by the Court stood expired on

27.06.2018 and the costs have not been deposited within the aforesaid period, in spite of the fact that the certified copy of the order has been obtained by the learned Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the official respondents.

¶03In the aforesaid backdrop, notice was issued by the Registrar Judicial of this Court to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Jammu to show cause in the instant matter and to appear in person or through the concerned Advocate on

18.07.2018.

¶04The record further reveals that the instant ROBKAR was listed before this Court on 23.05.2025 and also on 04.08.2025 on which date, none has appeared on behalf of both the parties and today, when the instant ROBKAR was taken up, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent-Kumar Rajeev Ranjan that the matter landed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the costs was enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- and Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG submits that the same has already been deposited on 20.02.2023. Thus, she prays that the proceedings in the instant ROBKAR be dropped, as the costs in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court has since been deposited before the Registry of this Court and the order stands complied with.

¶05With a view to verify her claim, she has also provided the copy of the receipt certifying the factum of depositing the aforesaid amount before the Registry of this Court which has been taken on record. Thus, in the light of the

above, the proceedings in the instant ROBKAR are dropped against the said respondent-Kumar Rajeev Ranjan and the same stands closed.

¶06The relevant documents which have been provided by Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG are also taken on record along with the receipt.

¶07Accordingly, the proceedings in the instant ROBKAR are closed.

(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE JAMMU

14.10.2025

Riya Kochhar

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- ROBSW No. 2/2018 in SWP No. 1328/2015 ROBKAR .....Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. R. P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nigam Swaroop, Advocate vs UT of J&K and Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE