Dismissed¶19

Union Territory of J and K and Anr. (Home) v. Sahil Farooq Mir

J&K HC1 Dec 2025LPA/291/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 523 days; sufficient cause; intra court appeal; LPA No. 291/2025; CM No. 7926/2025; HCP No. 151/2023; habeas corpus; preventive detention; detention order No. 53/DMP/PSA/2023; order lost efficacy; efflux of time; sanction to file appeal 07.03.2025; appeal filed 27.11.2025; U.T. of J&K; High Court of J&K and Ladakh at Srinagar; CJ Court; Arun Palli CJ; Rajnesh Oswal J.; application and appeal dismissed; non-reportable.

What did the court decide?

The applicants' explanation that the period after obtaining sanction on 07.03.2025 was spent completing formalities, standing alone, cannot be accepted as sufficient cause to condone the delay, since the appeal was in fact filed only on 27.11.2025, i.e. after more than 08 months of grant of sanction. ¶17

Union Territory of J and K and Anr. (Home) Vs Sahil Farooq Mir — J&K HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

(through virtual mode)

¶4

Uploaded on 03.12.2025

¶5

CJ Court

¶6

Case No. CM No. 7926/2025 in LPA No. 291/2025

¶7

U. T of J&K and another

¶8

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶9

Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Adv.

¶10

¶11

Sahil Farooq Mir through his father Farooq Ahmad Mir

¶12

.…. Respondent(s)

¶13

Through:

¶14

Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶15

ORDER 01.12.2025

¶16

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 523 days in filing the intra court appeal against the judgment dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Writ Court in HCP No. 151/2023, titled, Sahil Farooq Mir vs. U. T. of J&K and another, whereby order of detention bearing No. 53/DMP/PSA/2023 dated 25.10.2023 issued by applicant No. 2, has been quashed.

¶17

The applicants' primary contention is that, while the sanction to file the appeal was obtained on 07.03.2025, the subsequent period was spent for completing the formalities to file the appeal. This explanation, standing alone, cannot be accepted as sufficient cause to condone the delay. The record depicts that appeal was filed only on 27.11.2025 i.e. after more than 08 months of grant of sanction. Furthermore, the order of detention

¶18

has lost its efficacy due to the efflux of time. Having considered the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants warranting the condonation of delay.

¶19

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. As such, the instant application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. As a necessary consequence, the accompanied appeal shall also stand dismissed.

¶20

(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
01.12.2025
Rakesh
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: No

¶21

Rakesh Kumar 2025.12.03 13:44 I attest to the accuracy andCM No. 7926/2025 Page 2 of 2 integrity of this document

Union Territory of J and K and Anr. (Home) v. Sahil Farooq Mir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Territory of J and K and Anr. (Home) v. Sahil Farooq Mir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Champa Devi and Anr. Vs Gulab Chand and Ors.

Union of India Th Its Secretary Ministry of Defence New Delhi and Others Vs Balwant Singh

State Th.Education Deptt.and Ors. Vs Gulab Chand and Ors.

Kirandeep Singh Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and Others

Ut of Jk through Additional Chief Secretary Finance Department Vs Madan Lal and Another

Jai Ganesh Disposals Th Sudesh Kumar Sawhney Vs National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd. and Others