High CourtsDivision Bench(2013) 04 J&K CK 0014

Sudesh Kumari vs State and Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 23 April 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.M. Kumar, C.J · Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J
CASE NUMBER
LPAOW No. 87 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 350 words

M.M. Kumar, C.J.—The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 22-11-2012 passed by

learned Single Judge of this court issuing directions to the official respondents to consider the representation of the writ petitioner respondent No. 6

and take a decision in the matter within a period of seven days from the date, a copy of this order is served on them. The main grievance of the

appellant is that the order has been passed without serving any notice to him because another petition namely, OWP No. 272/2012 has been

preferred by him and there is interim order passed by this court on 29-2-2012, staying the operation of order dated 16-02-2012.

2.

Mrs. Watali learned State counsel has placed on record a copy of the consideration order dated 30-11-2012 in pursuance of directions issued

by this court in the impugned order. The Joint Chief Electoral Officer has decided the representation made by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 6

as per the directions of this court and the writ petitioner respondent No. 6 has not been able to secure any relief. The order dated 30-11-2012 has

so far remained unchallenged before any forum.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the various orders relevant to the controversy.

4.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge dated 22-11-2012 in OWP

no. 1597/2012 preferred by the writ petitioner respondent No. 6 has already been given effect resulting in passing of an order dated 30-11-2012.

It is not disputed by Mr. Wazir, learned counsel for the appellant that the order dated 30-11-2012 does not affect the rights of the appellant in any

manner whatsoever.

5.

Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal as having been rendered infructuous. However dismissal of the appeal shall not be construed as a bar for

the writ petitioner-respondent No. 6 to work out his remedy in accordance with law for assailing order dated 30-11-2012. The appeal stands

disposed of in the above said manner.