Single judge of J&K High Court dismissed Special Writ Petition for want of prosecution due to absence of the petitioner and lack of representation on the last date of hearing and current date. Interim orders stood vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S. No. 10 After Notice Matters
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SWP No. 944/2011
Tanveer-ul-Haq
…..Petitioner(s)
Through: None
V/s
State Govt. of JK and Ors. ….. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. M.A. Qayoom, Adv. CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge.
ORDER
03.12.2021
There was no representation on behalf of petitioner on last date of hearing. Today also, when the matter was called out nobody turned up to represent the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the matter. Dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
(Sanjay Dhar) Judge
SRINAGAR
03.12.2021
“Mir Arif”
AASIF GUL 2021.12.03 23:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Tanveer-ul-Haq
State Govt. of JK and Ors.
Sanjay Dhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
