Serial No.46 SUPPL. CAUSE LIST-I IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2698/2025 CM(7153/2025) Latif Ahmad Kakroo …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M.M. Khan, Advocate Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 04.11.2025 1. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order dated 13th May, 2011, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar, whereby the ad-hoc services of the petitioner as Judicial Clerk in the Tehsil Court, Srinagar have been terminated. 2. Prior to the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of SWP No. 1324/2011, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24th July, 2017. 3. The application filed for restoration of the said writ petition was also dismissed on the ground of delay by a MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 06.11.25 Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 31st January, 2024. A review petition filed too came to be dismissed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of an SLP No. 49461/2024 which also came to be dismissed on 16th December, 2024. 5. The petitioner has yet again filed the present writ petition on the same cause of action and for seeking the same reliefs. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the issue of maintainability of a second petition on the same cause of action more particularly when the earlier litigation filed by him stood settled at the level of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner was fair enough to seek leave of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. 6. In the given facts and circumstances, we were inclined to take a serious view in the matter and impose exemplary costs on the petitioner. However, considering, the fair submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 04.11.2025 <Mir Arif= MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 06.11.25