Sr. No. 31 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No. 250/2024 In WP(C) No. 1872/2024 CM No. 7052/2024 CM No. 7053/2024 CM No. 7054/2024 Fatha Mohd …. Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Mohd Latif Malik, Advocate. V/s UT of J&K and Ors. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Irfaan Khan, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 12.03.2025 CM No. 7052/2024 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 35 days in filing an appeal against judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [the Writ Court] in WP(C) No. 1872/2024. The application is opposed by respondent No. 6 by filing objections. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that since the impugned order which is sought to be challenged in appeal was passed without notice to the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause to represent this appeal within limitation. The application, for the foregoing reasons, is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 250/2024 Impugned in this appeal is an order and judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Writ Court in WP(C) No. 1872/2024 whereby, the Writ Court has directed the official respondents to commence the exercise for appointment of Lambardar and conclude the same within one week. The impugned order is assailed by the appellant, primarily, on the ground that the aforesaid order, which affects adversely, has been passed by the Writ Court without notice to him and without providing any opportunity of being heard. He submits that the effect of the order impugned passed by the Writ Court is to dislodge the appellant, who is working as Lambardar of village Kalimasta, District Ramban. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the Writ Court, which adversely affects the appellant, could not have been passed without notice to the appellant, who is arrayed as party respondent No. 6 in the petition. The appellant has, thus, been condemned unheard. This renders the judgment not sustainable in law. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the Writ Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Writ Court for fresh consideration and passing appropriate orders after hearing the appellant herein. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to file objections within a period of two weeks. Let the writ petition come up before the Court on 07.04.2025. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge Jammu: 12.03.2025 Vishal Sharma