HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE) RP No. 18/2025 In WP(C) No. 2907/2022 1. Union Territory of J&K Through Chief Secretary to Govt. Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu 2. Commissioner Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar 3. Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar 4. Kritika Jyotsna, IAS, age 39 years The Then Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, Kashmir presently posted as Special Secretary GST, Uttar Pardesh. 5. Additional Deputy Commissioner, (Nodal Officer), District Ganderbal …..Petitioners Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Vs Abdul Majid Sofi S/o Haji Noor-ud-din Sofi R/o Beehma Ganderbal Presently at Zakura Srinagar. Prop. Namroze Commercial Complex, Beehama Ganderbal .…. Respondent Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (04.08.2025) 01. Ms. Kritika Jyotsna-IAS, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, Kashmir, (the review petitioner) has filed Serial No. 02 2 RP No. 18/2025 In WP(C) No. 2907/2022 the present review petition seeking expunction of the adverse remarks made by this Court against her in judgment dated 21.02.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 2907/2022. 02. In the review petition, it has been submitted that at the relevant point of time when the review petitioner had filed written statement before the civil court at Ganderbal, COVID-19 Pandemic conditions were prevailing in whole world and due to this unprecedented situation and uncertainty, the review petitioner who was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal had to rely on verbal reports from the concerned staff which led to filing of an incorrect information in the written statement before the civil court. 03. An additional affidavit has been filed by the review petitioner wherein it has been submitted that she was in her third trimester of pregnancy at the relevant point of time and as a result of which, she could not properly concentrate so as to verify the information received. 04. Heard and considered. 05. This Court while deciding the WP(C) No. 2907/2022 titled “Abdul Majid Sofi Vs. UT of J&K & Ors.” had observed in para-16 of the judgment that the then Deputy 3 RP No. 18/2025 In WP(C) No. 2907/2022 Commissioner, Ganderbal had filed a palpably false pleading before the learned Principal District Judge, Ganderbal stating therein that the building in question is not in occupation of the District Administration which stand is contrary to the stand of the Deputy Commissioner taken in the writ petition. It was observed by this Court that the conduct of the then Deputy Commissioner is reprehensible and that the officer has no respect for rule of law. It was also observed that the then Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal deserves to be proceeded against for having filed a false pleading before the learned District Judge, Ganderbal. 06. After making aforesaid observations, this Court in the concluding para of the judgment had directed that the learned Principal District Judge, Ganderbal shall consider launching of appropriate criminal proceedings against the then Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal for having filed prima facie false written statement before the said court in the suit filed by the petitioner. 07. A perusal of record would show that the review petitioner, who was posted as the then Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal had filed written statement before the learned District Judge, Ganderbal to the claim of writ petitioner 4 RP No. 18/2025 In WP(C) No. 2907/2022 stating therein that the building in question was not under the occupation of the District Administration. The written statement was filed by the review petitioner during the height of COVID-19 Pandemic. The submission of the review petitioner that during the relevant period due to restrictions on movements, instead of relying upon written report, verbal reports were being obtained from the relevant officials/officers appears to correct. It is a fact of common knowledge that during the relevant period physical functioning of the offices all over the country was hampered. 08. The additional factor brought forth by the review petitioner that she was in third trimester of her pregnancy obviously would have certainly contributed to the situation which might have prevented her to personally verify the actual facts. 09. For the reasons stated above, which appears to be plausible, the explanation tendered by the review petitioner is accepted and the remarks made against her in para-16 of the judgment dated 21.02.2025 as also the direction No. (II) contained in the para-19 of the aforesaid judgment are recalled and expunged. 10. The review petition stands disposed of, accordingly. 5 RP No. 18/2025 In WP(C) No. 2907/2022 11. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Principal District Judge, Ganderbal for information. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 04.08.2025 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : No