HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No. 115/2025 in WP (C) No. 3360/2019 CM No. 3589/2025 UT of J & K & Ors. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Meharban Singh, AAG v/s Naseema Begum .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASH PAUL BOURNEY, JUDGE ORDER 29.09.2026 CM No. 3589/2025 1. The appeal sought to be preferred against the order and judgment dated 10.05.2024, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“the Writ Court”] in WP (C) No. 3360/2019 titled “Naseema Begum Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.”, is delayed by 294 days and, therefore, the instant application for condonation of delay. 2. The delay is sought to be explained on the ground that, though, the appellants were represented before the Writ Court and received a copy of the judgment in time, yet it took them sometime to collect and examine the record and process the matter at different levels with a view to taking a decision for filing the appeal. There is also reference to the matter having been referred to the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for opinion. This is what has been pleaded in the application for seeking a condonation of delay of 294 days. 3. Objections on behalf of the respondent have been filed. Sr. No. 28 2 LPA No. 115/2025 in WP (C) No. 3360/2019 CM No. 3589/2025 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, we find that the appellants have miserably failed to explain a huge delay of 294 days in filing the appeal. We understand that in the Government business, it takes some time to take decisions, however, decision to file appeal or otherwise cannot take 294 days as is the case on hand. It seems that immediate steps for filing the appeal were not taken by the authorities concerned and an afterthought decision was taken to challenge the order only to avoid adverse orders in the contempt petition. 5. We have also gone through the judgment sought to be challenged in the appeal. We are convinced that the judgment impugned passed by the learned Writ Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity. A minor girl, aged 06 years, has suffered disability of 15% in Electrocution and has been awarded total compensation of ₹ 5,26,280/-, which, in our opinion, cannot be said to be, too, exorbitant to call for interference. 6. In view of the aforesaid, we find this application devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal shall also stand dismissed. (Yash Paul Bourney) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 29.09.2026 Manan