Serial No. 5 Regular Cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 6568/2024 in LPA No. 282/2024 UT of J&K th. Principal Secretary to Govt. and Ors. ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate V/s Safiya Begum and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. J. H. Reshi, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE (ORDER) 26.05.2025 CM No. 6568/2024 This appeal sought to be preferred against the Judgment dated 17.05.2017, passed in OWP No. 1667/2013, is delayed by 2655 days and hence the instant application for condonation of delay. In the application for condonation of delay, it is pleaded by the applicants that though they were aware of the Judgment passed and had been filing compliance reports before the learned Single Bench in terms of various orders passed from time to time, they thought of challenging the impugned order only when the compliance reports submitted by the applicants from time to time were not accepted. It is on this ground a huge delay of 2655 days is sought to be explained. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document The respondents have filed their objections and have taken a clear stand that the Judgment dated 17.05.2017, was passed in presence of counsel appearing for the Government and, therefore, the applicants had become aware of the Judgment on the date of its passing itself. It is further submitted in the objections that not only the applicants were present on the date of Judgment, but they had consciously participated in the contempt proceedings and filed their compliance reports from time to time. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the explanation tendered by the applicants for filing the appeal after a huge delay of 2655 days, does not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ for seeking condonation of delay. The applicants, as per their own admission, were aware of the Judgment passed by this Court all along and were participating in the contempt proceedings. Simply because the Contempt Court has taken a view, which the applicants find inconvenient or contrary to the spirit of the Judgment, is no ground to question the Judgment after a huge delay of 2655 days that too without rendering any explanation constituting sufficient cause. For all these aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant application, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 26.05.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document