05 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) No. 541/2023 In WP(C) No. 937/2023 K S Enterprises ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Ms. Syed Ainain Qadiri, Advocate vice Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate. V/s Sheetal Nanda and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG with Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA Ms. Raheela Khan, Adv. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Judge ORDER 29.08.2025 1. The writ petition filed by the petitioner, was disposed of, on 24.04.2023, with the following directions: “..the writ petition is, accordingly, admitted to hearing and is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to accord effective consideration to the release of balance amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- in favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of passing P a g e | 2 CCP(S) No. 541/2023 In WP(C) No. 937/2023 of this order in accordance with applicable rules.” 2. In compliance to order dated 17.08.2024, the respondents have, filed the affidavit of Commissioner Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department. A perusal of the said affidavit reveals that the report was sought from the Mission Director, Mission Vatsalya, J&K who vide communication dated 04.09.2024 has intimated that as per the records available with the Directorate, the petitioner had supplied only 24 laptops and his claim for payment for the balance of 20 laptops is not substantiated as they have never been received by the Department. It is further stated in the affidavit that the Department had accorded effective consideration to the claim of the petitioner and vide Letter dated 05.02.2024, the petitioner was requested to furnish the necessary supporting documents with regard to his claim, if any so that the requisite action may be taken in the matter in compliance to the directions dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court. However the petitioner failed to furnish any requisite supporting documents with regard to supply of 20 No. of laptops in the Department. 3. Precisely the stand of the respondent is that the amount sought for the 20 No. of laptops is not sustainable in view of the fact that they were never received by the respondents. P a g e | 3 CCP(S) No. 541/2023 In WP(C) No. 937/2023 4. In view of the above, the proceedings against the respondents are dropped and the contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy as is available under law. (Rajnesh Oswal) Judge SRINAGAR 29.08.2025 Aasif