This order dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 and connected applications for want of prosecution. The petitioner failed to appear in previous hearings, did not file a supplementary affidavit ordered on 07.03.2025, and was absent on the date of hearing.
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.
Sr. No. 11
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2606/2019 CM No. 7987/2023 CM No. 1189/2021
Inhabitants of Village Pathgam
.....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- None.
v/s
State and others
.....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Pallvi Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-1, 2, 4 and 5. Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-3.
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER 10.09.2026
There was no representation on behalf of petitioner on the previous date
of hearing. Same is the position today also.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not filed the supplementary affidavit, in terms of order dated 07.03.2025, despite availing number of opportunities. It shows that the petitioner is no longer interested in prosecuting this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed , along with connected applications, for want of prosecution.
(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge
JAMMU 10.09.2026 Raj Kumar
Raj Kumar 2026.09.14 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Inhabitants of Village Pathgam
State
Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
