Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 704 (JK)

KASHMIR MOTORS v. SHAFIQ SHAFI SHAH

WP(C)/2972/2025 · 2026-04-23

Sanjay Parihar, Sanjeev Kumar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Serial No. 01 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2972/2025 KASHMIR MOTORS …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. S.M. Ayoub, Advocate Vs. SHAFIQ SHAFI SHAH ...Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 23.04.2026 1. Impugned in this petition is an order dated 2nd September, 2025 passed by the Jammu & Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [“the Commission”] in Appeal No. 29/2024 titled “Kashmir Motors Vs. Shafiq Shafi Shah”, whereby the Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner herein on the following reasons: “a. For non-prosecution, b. For want of sufficient cause in explaining the delay, and c. For being devoid of any merits.” 2. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction or power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, as there is no such provision in the Jammu & Kashmir, Consumer Protection Act. 3. The respondent, on being served, has caused his appearance through Mr. Bhat Khrusheed, Advocate, but has chosen not to contest this petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, we find that the appeal filed by the petitioner herein has not been dismissed solely for non-prosecution, but has also been dismissed for want of sufficient cause in explaining the delay. However, from the reading of the order impugned, we do MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 23.04.26 not find any discussion with regard to the explanation tendered by the petitioner herein for delay, nor the Court has dealt with the merits of the controversy. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 2nd September, 2025 cannot be sustained in law. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 2nd September, 2025 is set aside. 6. The matter is remanded back to the Commission for consideration of the application for condonation of delay and the appeal on merits afresh. 7. Disposed of. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 23.04.2026 “ARIF” MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 23.04.26