Page 1 LPA no.97/2026 CM no.3014/2026 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … LPA no.97/2026 CM no.3014/2026 Secretary, Department of Culture Government of J&K, Srinagar, Lal Mandi, Srinagar …….Appellant(s) Through: Mr Syed Musaib, Dy. AG Versus 1. M/S Gulzar Ahmad Sheikh, through its Proprietor Sheikh Gulzar Ahmad Son of Sheikh Habibullah, Resident of Sanat Nagar, Srinagar. 2. Union Territory of J&K through Commissioner Secretary to Government, Roads and Buildings (R&B) Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu 3. Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation through its Managing Director, Rail Head Complex Jammu/Haft Chinar Srinagar 4. Deputy Genera! Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Unit-Srinagar Haft Chinar-Srinagar ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr Sikander Hayat Khan, Advocate for respondent no.1 CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 19.05.2026 1. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 8th May 2026 passed in WP(C) no.2099/2023 titled “M/s Gulzar Ahmad Sheikh v. Union Territory of J&K and others”, whereby the learned Writ Court, while closing the right of respondent no.4, i.e., appellant herein, has simultaneously directed appellant and proforma respondents herein to make an endeavour to release the amount for which bills have been verified by competent authority in favour of respondent. It is contended S.no.06 Page 2 LPA no.97/2026 CM no.3014/2026 by appellant that in the order impugned itself it is mentioned that due to error regarding address of appellant and communication gap, he could neither appear earlier nor file his response, and in absence of response the learned Writ Court ought not to have directed appellant and proforma respondents herein to release the admitted amount. 2. It appears that the writ petition had been pending ever since 2023 and for one reason or the other, the appellant could not file the response which prompted the learned Writ Court to pass the order dated 8th May 2026. 3. After we heard learned counsel appearing for parties at some length, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondent no.1 that though appellant does not deserve any concession so far as grant of further time to file response is concerned, but to secure the ends of justice it would be appropriate if appellant is granted further time by next date of hearing to file response. 4. Learned counsel for appellant has assured that response would be filed by or before the next date of hearing before the learned Writ Court. 5. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 8th May 2026 is set-aside and the appellant is granted the time to file the Response by or before the next date of hearing before the learned Writ Court, failing which learned Writ Court shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 6. Disposed of. (Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli) Judge Chief Justice Srinagar 19.05.2026 Ajaz Ahmad, Secy Whether approved for reporting? No