HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CPOWP No. 4/2016 Sham Singh & Ors …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. P N Bhat, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Urvashi Kitchloo, Advocate Vs Avni Lavasa & Ors .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) (14.07.2026) 1. The instant contempt petition arises out of an order/judgment passed by this Court dated 17.08.2009 in OWP No. 59/2006, wherein the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was disposed of by directing the respondents to treat the writ petition as representation and consider the case of the petitioners by passing appropriate orders as per the rules occupying the field, provided the petitioners are eligible, within three months from the date a copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition and its anneures was served upon them. 2. The record reveals that the instant contempt petition is by way of second round of litigation as the earlier contempt petition preferred by the petitioners bearing COA No. 141/2009 was disposed of vide order dated 10.12.2015 by granting the petitioners liberty to file fresh petition. 3. This is how the instant contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioners for non-compliance of the order passed by the learned writ Court mentioned supra. The respondents have filed a fresh statement of S. No. 12 2 CPOWP No. 4/2016 facts/compliance report dated 26.02.2026 wherein the respondents have taken a specific stand that the case of the petitioner was considered and a detailed speaking order dated 21.02.2026 has been passed wherein the claim of the petitioner stands rejected. 4. The respondents while filing the aforesaid compliance report has also placed on record the order of consideration dated 21.02.2026 by virtue of which the claim of the petitioners after examination was found to be devoid of any supporting material, was rejected. Thus, this court after perusing the stand taken by the respondents in the fresh compliance report and the order of consideration passed, is of the view that the order passed by the learned writ court stands complied with, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the instant contempt petition alive as the order/judgment passed by the learned writ Court stands complied with. Accordingly, the proceedings in the instant contempt proceedings are closed. Rule, if any, shall stand discharged. However, disposal of the contempt petition shall not come in the way of the petitioners to agitate the cause afresh by challenging the aforesaid order by way of an appropriate proceeding, if so advised. (WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE JAMMU 1407.2026 Vijay Vijay Kumar 2026.07.14 17.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document