HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No.39/2025 UT of J&K ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy.AG. V/s Gourav Sharma ….Respondent(s) Through :- None. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER (25.02.2025) 01. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner which is J&K Khadi Village and Industries Board, Jammu against whom the respondent had filed a consumer complaint. Initially, the consumer complaint was dismissed on the grounds of non-prosecution. Against the order dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution, the respondent herein approached the High Court which restored the said case holding that a consumer complaint cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution. After restoration, learned District Consumer Forum proceeded with the case and vide order dated 10.02.2018, allowed the consumer complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the respondent herein along with litigation charges of Rs.10,000/- for spoiling his career and wasting his precious time. Against the said order of the District Consumer Forum, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the State Consumer Commission which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 17.04.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for restoration, which also languished from non-prosecution on the part of the Sr.No. 50 2 petitioner and, thereafter by a speaking order dated 30.07.2024, the State Consumer Commission dismissed the application for restoration holding that under the appellate jurisdiction, State Consumer Commission has the authority for dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution or deciding the same on merits in absentia. Learned State Consumer Commission decided to pursue the first option and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and also imposed an interest @ 6% on the compensation awarded by learned District Forum. 02. After having gone through the last impugned order dated 30.07.2024, it appears that the petitioner is an endemic defaulter. The present petition has also been filed belatedly before this Court. The petitioner has shown no diligence in the prosecution of the appeal and also an application for restoration of the appeal. This Court does not find any perversity or impropriety in the order passed by the learned State Consumer Commission in order to interfere with the same. This petition is dismissed. (RAJESH SEKHRI) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE Jammu 25.02.2025 Eva