Serial No.17 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM 3829/2023 in LPA 120/2023 UNION TERRITORY OF J & K & ORS. …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG Vs. NADEEM AHMAD HAFIZ ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Younis Ahad, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 30.06.2025 1. The judgment dated 12th July, 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1272/2017 c/w SWP No. 1713/2017, is subject matter of challenge in a belated appeal filed after 4 years, 5 months and nine days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The delay is sought to be explained in the application by the appellants by taking a stand that upon receipt of copy of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the matter was taken up with the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs on 01.01.2019 for its advice. The said Department vide its communication dated 17th January, 2019, returned the file with the advice that there were some legal issues involved and that advice could be rendered only after the legal issues were properly formulated for the opinion of the Law Department. The Law Department thus expressed its inability to tender any opinion in the absence of properly framed legal issues by the Forest Department. 2. The matter was again examined in the Forest Department and it was decided to be taken up the matter with the State Administrative Council for seeking one- time relaxation to accommodate the petitioners. The matter accordingly landed Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 03.07.2025 before the General Administrative Department (GAD) on 17.01.2020. The GAD also returned the file with the advice, which is contained in paragraph 5 of the application. It is submitted that, based on the advice tendered by the GAD, a consideration order was passed on 12th March, 2022, which was not accepted by the Court hearing the contempt petition filed by the respondents. Upon rejection of the consideration order by the Contempt Court, the matter was again taken up with the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs for obtaining fresh approval. It was on the advice of the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs that the decision was taken to file the present appeal. This, in a nutshell, is how the delay has been sought to be explained by the petitioners. 3. From the reading of the judgment sought to be challenged in the appeal it becomes abundantly clear that the writ Court has not left it open to the appellants to consider and reject the claim of the respondent herein for his engagement as Rehbar-e-Janglat. The direction contained in order dated 12th January, 2018, is clear and categoric, calling upon respondent No. 3 in the writ petition to accord approval to the engagement of the petitioners as Rehbar-e-Janglat against the posts reserved by the learned Single Judge in terms of order dated 28th July, 2017. Obviously, no relaxation was required, and the respondents were entitled to be engaged as Rehbar-e-Janglat in compliance with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. It seems that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was misconstrued, and a consideration order rejecting the claim of the respondent herein was passed, which was rightly not accepted by the Contempt Court. 4. The appellants were well aware of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and were continuously appearing and contesting the contempt petition before the learned Single Judge. They unnecessarily moved the file from one department to another just to delay the compliance of the judgment. Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 03.07.2025 5. In view of the aforesaid background, it cannot be said that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the period of limitation. A delay of more than four years is huge and cannot be condoned on mere asking of the appellants. We find no merit in this application, and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently LPA No. 120/2023 shall also stand dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 30.06.2025 “ARIF” Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 03.07.2025