S. No. 38 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) 123/2025 in[WP(C) 2596/2024] c/w WP(C) 2596/2024 MOHAMMAD ABBAS NAJAR …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Pirzada Junaid Tahir, Advocate Vs. ATAL DULLOO( CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT) AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, AC Mr. I. A. Parray, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER 13.05.2025 CCP(S) 123/2025 Learned for the respondents submits that petitioner’s representation would be considered within two weeks. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, the proceedings in this contempt petition are dropped and contempt petition is closed. However, in case, representation of the petitioner is not considered and decided, he shall be at liberty to approach this Court for revival of the contempt petition. WP(C) 2596/2024 This matter was taken up today for consideration. The respondents’ counsels would submit that having regard to the relief claimed, this petition is not maintainable. Thus, they submit that since the petition is not maintainable on legal issues, therefore, matter may be considered today without filing objections. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s brother was killed; in respect whereof, an FIR No. 361/2012 in Police Station Anantnag, was lodged against respondent no.7-Noor ul Hassan Parray, who at that time was a Deputy Superintendent of Police. According to the petitioner, the 2 CCP(S) 123/2025 in[WP(C) 2596/2024] c/w WP(C) 2596/2024 allegations were that respondent no.7 was involved in the murder of his brother. He also submits that investigation about the occurrence in respect of which complaint was filed by petitioner and investigation conducted, resulted in proving offence under Section 304-II RPC against respondent no.7. He would contend that sanction was accorded for the prosecution of respondent no.7, but he got it stayed by filing a case before this Court, viz. OWP no.1274/2016. According to the counsel for the petitioner despite the investigation complete and offence under Section 304-II RPC proved against respondent no.7, he has been promoted to the post of Superintendent of Police (SP), of which he is aggrieved on the ground that his promotion is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, because petitioner has a right of speedy and fair trial which according to him would be hampered because of the promotion of respondent no.7. He submits that to challenge the promotion of respondent no.7, he has a locus to file this petition and in support of his contention he has referred to various judgements, viz. AIR 1991 SC2010; AIR 1976 SC 578; (2013) 5 SCC 470; (2002) 1 SCC 33; (2004) 2 SCC 150; ( 2015) 15 SCC 263; Privy Council Appeal No.54 of 1959 and Judgement passed by this Court in WP(C)no. 827/2023 dated 03.05.2024 (Naba Kumar Giri vs. UOI and Ors.). Learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that petitioner has made a representation against the order of promotion of respondent no.7 which has not been decided. He thus submits that promotion of respondent no.7 has been made by violating his rights, therefore, this petition would be maintainable and has a merit. On the other hand, Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, learned Sr. AAG, submits that since the petition is not maintainable because none of the petitioner’s rights stand violated as a consequence of promotion of respondent no. 7. He submits that right of speedy trial would not mean that respondent no.7 is not to be promoted and his promotion in any way will delay the investigation or trial of the case or would hamper his interest. It is petitioner’s own admission that investigation in the FIR has been completed and offence under Section 304 Part II has been established against the respondent no.7, so there is no complaint so far as the investigation conducted and there is no allegation that he had in any way interfered with the 3 CCP(S) 123/2025 in[WP(C) 2596/2024] c/w WP(C) 2596/2024 investigation. Trial is yet to commence and chargesheet is yet to be filed, therefore, at this stage, there is no question of respondent no.7 having or is interfering or delay the matter. Had the proceedings been delayed, petitioner could have approached the Court seeking a direction for speedy trial which admittedly is yet to start. It appears that by filing this petition, petitioner is interested only to stall the promotion of respondent no.7 and such promotion does not in any way violate or infringe any of the rights of the petitioner. By the promotion of the said respondent, petitioner’s rights could not in any way be said to have been violated. Had it affected his right, definitely he would have a locus to challenge to correct the wrong which may have been done so far as the petitioner is concerned. The pleas taken in this petition as against the promotion of respondent no.7 do not, in any way, show violation of rights of petitioner, therefore, petitioner cannot be said to have a right or locus to challenge the said promotion so as to maintain this petition. Petition, hopelessly, is without any merit and is dismissed, accordingly along with the connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 13.05.2025 “Imtiyaz” Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.07.2025 09:59