CCP(S) No.439/2024 Page 1 of 2 Serial No.02 Regular list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) No. 439/2024 in SWP No. 978/2017 Arshad Hussain Ganaie ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Ms. Nighat Amin, Advocate vice Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate. V/s Nelofar Khan and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE (ORDER) 17.02.2025 1. In the instant contempt petition, the petitioner herein has sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents/contemnors for having allegedly disobeyed order dated 3rd March, 2023, passed in SWP No. 98/2017, in terms whereof, while disposing of the writ petition of the petitioner, the respondents came to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for next higher post in accordance with the provisions of the law and statute and while considering the claim of the petitioner with regard to the promotion, the juniors shall also be taken into consideration. 2. Upon coming of the instant contempt petition for consideration on 18th November, 2024, and after arguing for a while, the counsel for the petitioner prayed for a short adjournment for filing supplementary affidavit to the contempt petition and on the next date of hearing, i.e, 29th November, 2024, the Court upon consideration of the said supplementary affidavit observed and opined that the explanation offered in the supplementary affidavit for filing instant contempt petition beyond the prescribed period of limitation is Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CCP(S) No.439/2024 Page 2 of 2 cryptic and insufficient whereupon the counsel for the petitioner yet again sought adjournment to augment the said supplementary affidavit as well. 3. Record would reveal that ever since the said date of hearing dated 29th November, 2024 till today, the counsel for the petitioner has failed to file the supplementary affidavit. 4. Since as noticed in the preceding paras, the contempt has been found to have been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and though an explanation thereto stands submitted by the petitioner by way of a supplementary affidavit, having been considered by this Court on 29th November, 2024 and found insufficient and cryptic, inasmuch as the failure of the petitioner to support the contents of the supplementary affidavit till date in order to seek condonation of delay in filing the instant contempt petition beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the instant contempt petition under these circumstances is liable to be dismissed being time barred under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. Accordingly, the contempt petition is, dismissed. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 17.02.2025 “Abdul Rashid” Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document