Serial No. 68 Supp. Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 1156/2025 In LPA No. 42/2025 Habib Mochi and others … Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Saiful Islam Malik, Advocate Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ab. Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Mr. Mohd Younis Hafiz, Assisting counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER 11.03.2025 CM No. 1156/2025: 1. Heard on CM No. 1156/2025, which is application for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and the delay in filing the LPA is condoned. 3. CM disposed of. LPA No. 42/2025: 4. With the consensus of the parties, the appeal is taken up for consideration. 5. The appellants are aggrieved of the order dated 13.11.2024, by which the writ petition filed by them has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 6. The issue before the learned Single Judge was with regard to the retention of service books of the appellants herein by the Investigating Agency, which is conducting an investigation into offences registered under FIR No. 31/2014 of the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 12.03.2025 (VOK) (now Anti Corruption Bureau) for offences punishable under Section 5 (1) & (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act Svt. 2006 read with Section 120-B RPC. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the investigation has been going on more than 11 years, during which time the original service books have been retained by the Investigating Agency. 8. Upon going through the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has found no cause of action for the appellants herein to come to the court, as they have not been able to disclose how they are the persons aggrieved. Thereafter, in paragraph 9, the learned Single Judge has also directed that, while disposing of the petition, that if there are attested copies of the services records the same may be given by the Anti Corruption Bureau to the Department which shall be considered for whatsoever purpose. 9. The appellants have not been able to demonstrate before this Court as to how the retention of the service records by the Investigating Agency has detrimentally affected the appellants. Even otherwise, the service records are kept with the employer and the appellants would not in ordinary course have access to that. The directions given by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, sufficiently addresses the issues raised by the appellants herein and nothing further needs to be done. 10. Under the circumstances, we found no merit in this appeal, same is accordingly dismissed. (PUNEET GUPTA) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 11.03.2025 “Mir Arif” Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 12.03.2025