CPOWP No. 83/2010 Page 1 of 2 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court Case No. : CPOWP No. 83/2010 in [OWP No. 796/2009] Parveen Kumar ….. Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: None Vs Sourav Bhagat and Anr. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Assisting Counsel to Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER 12.12.2025 1. The petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for disobeying the order and judgment rendered in OWP No. 796 of 2009 (Parveen Kumar Vs State of J&K and Ors.) 2. In brief, the case set out in the petition is that the land comprised in Survey No. 243-Min situated at Village Channi Kartholi, Tehsil and District Samba, was the ancestral property of the petitioner. The National Hydro Project Corporation (NHPC) sanctioned a High-Tension Transformer under Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidut Yozana/Rural Electrification under Below Poverty Line (BPL) scheme for Village Reor, Tehsil and District Samba. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer, Rural Electrification, NHPC Ltd. allotted the installation work to M/s K.E.C. Ltd. Jammu. 3. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that M/s K.E.C. Ltd. started the installation process of the High-Tension Transformer in Village Channi Kartholi rather than Village Reor. And without conducting any Survey, a transformer was installed which posed a great danger to the lives of the people living in the vicinity. Not only that, the subject land was never even formally acquired nor any compensation was paid therefor. Sr.No. 09 CPOWP No. 83/2010 Page 2 of 2 4. It was in this backdrop, the petitioner was impelled to approach this Court vide OWP No. 796/ 2009 (ibid), which was eventually disposed of by this Court on July 27, 2009 with the following observation: “This petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the observation that in case the land of the petitioner is required for installation of high- tension transformer, then the Authorities to follow the procedure as prescribed under law and to pay proper concession to the petitioner.” 5. The records show that this petition was filed as back as on July 29, 2010. And notice is yet to be issued. Apparently, over 15 years have gone by. Thus, there is every possibility that the respondent-Authorities, in compliance with the order passed by this Court (ibid), may have passed the necessary orders. None is present on behalf of the petitioner either. 6. That being so, it appears that the petition is rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of as such. However, in the event any dispute/cause of action/interest still survives, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for revival of the proceedings and appropriate orders. ( (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 12.12.2025 Suraj