HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CCP(S) No. 121/2025 In WP(C) No. 1212/2024 Bharat Bhushan Khajuria .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Arsha Sharma, Advocate v/s Shaleen Kabra Commissioner Secretary Jal Shakti Department and others .....Respondent(s) Through :- Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Assisting Counsel to Ms. Monika Bhat, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MS. WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 04.08.2025 The instant contempt petition arises out of the order/judgment dated 29.05.2024 passed by this Court by virtue of which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of at the very threshold, with a direction to the respondents to consider/verify the claim of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition and the respondents were directed to take a decision for release of the amount found due within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order was furnished by the petitioner to them and the decision so taken by the respondents was directed to be conveyed to the petitioner in case there is no legal impediment. Since the aforesaid order was not complied with within the period granted by this Court, the instant contempt petition has been preferred in which Sr. No. 45 2 CCP(S) No. 121/2025 the notice was issued on 07.004.2025, the respondents thereafter have filed a detailed compliance report in which the respondents have taken a specific stand that the case of the petitioner was thoroughly examined and scrutinized by the department which was found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the case was rejected by passing a detailed speaking order No. 14/2025 dated 12.03.2025, which has been placed on record along with the compliance report. Perusal of the aforesaid rejection order reveals that the case of the petitioner was accorded due consideration and it was concluded that the claim submitted by the petitioner has been examined which has been found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stood rejected. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the compliance report filed by the respondents. Since the direction passed by the learned writ Court was specific to the extent of according consideration and verification with respect to the claim of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition and respondents were also directed to take a decision for the release of the amount thereafter. Thus, the release of the amount was dependant upon the verification and thereafter consideration was required to be done. Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law and the respondents by no such of imagination can raise objection post facto when the works stand executed. He further submitted that this Court had already in similar facts and circumstance, have annulled the action of the respondents in catena of judgments. 3 CCP(S) No. 121/2025 Since the direction passed by this Court stands complied with, no fruitful purpose will be served to keep this contempt petition alive. Accordingly, since the order passed by learned writ Court stands complied with, therefore, proceedings in the instant contempt petition are closed, however, liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge aforesaid order by way of appropriate proceedings if so advised. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. (Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge JAMMU 04.08.2025 Nikhil