13 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court Case: LPA No. 62/2023 CM No. 2760/2023 Senior Aerodrome Officer Presently Airport Director …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Inderjeet Gupta, Advocate v/s Amrik Singh and ors. …. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. J. P. Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. ORDER 30.04.2025 1. Vide order dated 17.04.2023, the learned Single Judge while allowing the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of writ petition bearing OWP No. 684/2011 dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.11.2020, has observed that “though the grounds taken in the application do not constitute sufficient and reasonable grounds which prevented the applicant from seeking restoration after the COVID period, however, in the interest of justice, delay is condoned subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to be deposited with the Advocate’s Welfare Fund.” 2 The only ground on which this order has been impugned by the appellant in this intra court appeal is that once the learned Single Judge has 2 LPA No. 62/2023 observed that the grounds taken in the application do not constitute sufficient and reasonable grounds for seeking restoration of the writ petition after the COVID period, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the application seeking condonation of delay. 3. The record depicts that the respondents had sought condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration and also for restoration of the writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.11.2020, on the ground that the writ petition was taken up for consideration virtually in absence of the respondents as well as their counsel during the COVID period and as none appeared on behalf of the respondents, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. It was stated that they came to know about the dismissal of the writ petition only in the month of August, 2022 and the certified copy of the order was received by them on 06.09.2022. 4. A perusal of the record further reveals that when the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.11.2020, none had appeared on behalf of the appellants as well. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has observed that there is delay from March, 2022 to October, 2022, but it was specifically pleaded by the respondents in the application that dismissal of the writ petition came to their knowledge only in the last week of August, 2022 and certified copy of the same was received on 06.09.2022. Thereafter, restoration application was filed. 5. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned, whereby the delay in filing the restoration application has been condoned but at the same time, we find that the observations made by the 3 LPA No. 62/2023 learned Single Judge that the grounds taken in the application do not constitute sufficient and reasonable grounds which prevented the respondents from seeking restoration after the COVID period, is not in consonance with the averments made by the respondents in the application seeking condonation of delay. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 30.04.2025 Karam Chand/Secy. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No KARAM CHAND 2025.05.22 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document KARAM CHAND 2025.05.26 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document