ABDUL GANI DAR AND ORS. v. MR.ANIL KUMAR GULURIA (COMMANDANT, 139-BN BSF )
CCP(S)/452/2024 · 2025-12-02
Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Contempt Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11406 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11406 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Serial No. 13 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) No. 452/2024
Abdul Gani Dar and Ors. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate
Vs. Mr. Anil Kumar Guluria
...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T.M.Shamsi, DSGI.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE.
ORDER 02.12.2025
01. The instant contempt petition arises out of an interim
order passed by this Court on 7th August, 2024, by virtue of which, the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioners strictly in accordance with rules in vogue.
02. The respondents have filed a detailed compliance report, in which, they have taken a specific stand that in compliance to the interim order passed by this Court mentioned supra, the representation filed by the petitioners earlier was accorded due consideration vide
Order dated 10th September, 2024, wherein the petitioners have been informed that a as per the SOP issued by the Indian Army regarding employment of porters and ponies, no Mate can be employed and/or
paid for transportation of stores. The respondents have taken further stand that the petitioners have submitted yet another representation for employment as Porter/Daily Wager received at 139 Bn, BSF and same has already been disposed of vide Order dated 10th December, 2024. The copies of consideration orders have also been placed on record as Annexure-III and Annexure-IV with the compliance report filed by the respondents.
03. Thus, in the light of stand taken by the respondents in the statement of facts/compliance report, this Court is prima facie of the view that the interim order passed by this Court stands complied with by the respondents by passing a detailed consideration orders mentioned supra. Accordingly, the proceedings in the instant contempt petition are closed.
04. Rule, if any framed, shall stand closed.
05. However, closure of the proceedings in the contempt petition shall not come in the way of petitioners to challenge the consideration orders, if so advised, by way of appropriate proceedings.
WP(C) No. 1688/2024
06. Reply stands filed.
07. List for consideration on 17th February, 2026.
08.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE SRINAGAR: 02.12.2025
“Shamim Dar”