HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- CM No.3602/2025 In WP (C) No.265/2020 Bansi Lal Bhardwaj …..Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. C. S. Azad, Advocate Vs Chenab Valley Power Projects Private limited And Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: None Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER (14.07.2025) 1. The applicant/petitioner came forward with institution of the writ petition-WP (C) No. 265/2020 whereby the principal relief sought was with respect to a communication No. CVPPPL/CVO/2020/16 dated 16.01.2020 issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer of Chenab Valley Power Projects Private Limited whereby some information was solicited from the petitioner who, at the relevant point of time, was in service of Pakal Dul Hydroelectric (HE) Project, Kishtwar, Jammu but superannuated from the service. 2. Upon the institution of the said writ petition, this Court, in terms of an order dated 29.01.2020, had called upon the petitioner to respond to the aforesaid impugned communication but restrained the official respondents to Serial No. 10 2 take any final decision with respect to the reply of the petitioner. 3. By the time the impugned communication was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner is said to have already superannuated from the service. 4. The writ petition came to suffer dismissal for non- prosecution in terms of an order dated 13.05.2025, when this Court came to observe by reference to the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents that with the efflux of time the writ petition has been rendered infructuous, meaning thereby the impugned communication was said to have rendered infructuous so as to generate any legal effect and, therefore, this Court felt persuaded to dismiss the writ petition for non- prosecution. 5. The petitioner has now come forward seeking restoration of writ petition. 6. Although the reasons given in the application would entitle the petitioner to have the restoration of the writ petition but this Court is of the view that until and unless some prejudicial action comes to take effect against the petitioner in furtherance of the impugned communication at the discretion of the writ respondents only then the petitioner would have an occasion to seek restoration of the writ petition or for that matter to file a fresh writ petition and, therefore, to order restoration of the writ 3 petition at this moment would be nothing but reviving an infructuous writ petition which would be adding burden to the docket of this Court and, therefore, at this stage the application is rejected without prejudicing the right of the writ petitioner in case of any adverse legal effect being pitted against the petitioner by reference to the impugned communication or to file a fresh writ petition if bearing a fresh cause of action, as may accrue to the petitioner. 7. Application is, thus, disposed of. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 14.07.2025 Sneha .