HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: WP(C) No. 2913/2025 Sunil Kumar ..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Sajad Sarwar Dar, Advocate Vs Jammu Municipal Corporation and Ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Srijan Mahajan, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 17.10.2025 01. Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner has called in question order dated 25.07.2023 after a lapse of more than two years, without justifying the delay in approaching this Court. When confronted with the maintainability of the instant petition, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the said order has already been challenged before the learned Tribunal, though he is unaware of the outcome of those proceedings. It thus appears that the petitioner, without awaiting the decision of the learned Tribunal, has prematurely filed the present petition and has also failed to explain the delay in challenging the impugned order. 02. In view of the above, the writ petition is held to be premature and not maintainable, as the petitioner has already availed the remedy before the appropriate authority. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as being premature and not maintainable. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue the remedy before the said authority. The dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not come in the way of the writ petitioner to file a fresh petition, in case of Sr. No. 165 2 | P a g e WP(C) No. 2913/2025 accrual of cause of action after the culmination of the proceedings initiated before the learned tribunal. Entertaining the instant writ petition at this stage would tantamount to allowing the petitioner to pursue two remedies simultaneously, which is not permissible under law. (WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE JAMMU 17.10.2025 Mihul Mihul Singh 2025.10.17 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document