The High Court dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution after the petitioner failed to appear on three consecutive hearing dates. Any interim directions were 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.
Supplementary List-I Serial No. 185
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2516/2024
Mohd. Mansha
…..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. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and
same was the case on previous two dates of hearing as well, which suggests that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting this petition.
02. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed for nonprosecution, alongwith application(s).
03. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE
JAMMU
18.09.2026
Shivalee
Mohd. Mansha
UT of J&K & Ors.
Rahul Bharti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
