HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM No. 6300/2025 In WP(C) No. 1854/2022 Inhabitants of Village Pandwan Dhar Tehsil & District Ramban …..Applicant/Petitioner Through: Mr. Swarn Kishore Singh, Advocate. Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Non-applicant/Respondents Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Assisting Counsel vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER (08.12.2025) CM No. 6300/2025 01. A representative writ petition-WP(C) No. 1854/2022 was filed in which if the leave was yet to be granted for enabling Tota Ram S/o Mansa Ram through whom the petition was instituted to maintain the same. 02. Filing of the writ petition-WP(C) No. 1854/2022 had taken place on 09.09.2022. 03. From 10.11.2023, the non-appearance on the part of the counsel for the petitioner started occurring. Serial No. 07 Regular List 2 CM No. 6300/2025 In WP(C) No. 1854/2022 04. When on 20.04.2024, 24.07.2024 and 06.12.2024, the counsel for the petitioner least bothered to cause his appearance in the case it left no option with the writ Court except to dismiss the writ petition for non-appearance by virtue of an order dated 19.03.2025. 05. A time barred restoration application-CM No. 6300/2025 has come to be filed for seeking restoration of the said writ petition, but accompanied with condonation of delay application-CM No. 6299/2025 filed on 29.09.2025 involving delay of 163 days. 06. The condonation of delay is being sought on a plea that the applicant is a villager who lives in the toughest terrain of the Jammu Division, with his village having been hit by the last floods, and that is the reason for him not to be available for personal appearance in the case, only to come to know about the case dismissal on 18.09.2025 whereupon he has come forward immediately with the condonation of delay application. 07. In the entire application, the learned counsel for the petitioner has least bothered to explain his default as a counsel in causing appearance on the aforesaid dates of absence, meaning thereby even the applicant is not acting as bona fide. 3 CM No. 6300/2025 In WP(C) No. 1854/2022 08. Even if the applicant’s cause of absence is to be taken into consideration, still it would not serve the purpose as the counsel for the petitioner in writ petition was Advocate Mr. Swarn Kishore Singh who continues to be the counsel for the applicant now and with respect to his own default he has not spelled out any whisper of a line and, therefore, this Court cannot condone the delay as a matter of routine. 09. Accordingly, the condonation of delay application is hereby dismissed. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 08.12.2025 Bunty Bunty Kumar 2025.12.10 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu