The High Court dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution after the petitioner's counsel appeared only on the first hearing date and defaulted on all subsequent listings.
Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution.
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.
Supplementary List-I Serial No. 182
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 1517/2023
Ghulam Hassan Malik
…..Petitioner(s)
Through: None.
Vs
UT of J&K & Ors.
.….Respondent(s)
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Nazia Fazal, Assisting Counsel.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER (18.09.2026)
01. Appearance of learned counsel for the petitioner in this case had taken place on the very first date of hearing before the Bench on 12.06.2023 and, therefore, on each successive date of listing of this case, learned counsel for the petitioner has defaulted in appearance which is constraining this Court to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution.
02. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE
JAMMU 18.09.2026 Shivalee
Ghulam Hassan Malik
UT of J&K & Ors.
Rahul Bharti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
