The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of condonation of delay should be applied with a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach, considering the elasticity of the terms 'sufficient cause' and the need for substantial justice. The court emphasized the importance of reasonableness and the distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration.

JUDGMENT :

Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J.

CM No. 3141/2021

1. A Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) under Clause 12 of LPA Rules has been filed against judgment dated 13.03.2018 passed in OWP No. 480 of 2018 titled Ajay Kumar v. State of J&K and ors., whereby the aforementioned writ petition has been disposed of with the directions referred in the judgment itself.

2. The aforesaid LPA is accompanied with application bearing CM No. 3141 of 2021 seeking condonation of delay in which there is delay of 1015 days in preferring the aforesaid LPA against the impugned judgment.

BRIEF FACTS

3. A writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner-respondent herein whereby following reliefs were sought:

“a. Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents to reinstate the petitioner back to the premises of newly constructed complex of General Bus Stand, and also provide him with the compensation amount of Rs. 20,000 from the date of his vacating the shop i.e. from 19.05.2017 as per the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by this Hon’ble Court in OWP No. 778 of 2018 titled Bharat Communication and ors. v. State and ors.

And,

b. Writ of Certiorari, quashing the notification No. Secy/JDA/PS-1279 dated 27.01.2018 issued by respondent No. 6.”

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally and in view of resolution passed in the meeting held on 12.12.2017 under the Chairmanship of Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition was disposed of with following directions:

“1. Learned counsel on instructions from the petitioner states that petitioner shall hand over the possession of the shop in his occupation to the officers of the JDA within one week’s time from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

2. On receipt of the possession of the shop of the petitioner/his legal representatives, the JDA shall deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month per shop in the account of the petitioner/his legal representatives by way of first installment within a period of three days from the date of handing over of the shop. Thereafter, the installments for the subsequent month shall be paid on or before 10th of every month.

3. That the JDA as per the policy shall allot the shop to the petitioner/his legal representatives in the ground floor of the proposed multi tier parking cum commercial complex at General Bus Stand, Jammu before putting the shops to auction.”

5. Although the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, yet Jammu Development Authority (JDA) has preferred a belated LPA along with condonation of delay application on the ground that when order passed by learned Single Judge came to the knowledge of the JDA, the same was confronted with the respondent to make him understood that order passed by learned Single Judge has been obtained by not projecting the correct position on the ground that his case is not similarly situated as of the persons who were petitioners in OWP No. 778 of 2017 titled Bharat Communication and ors. v. State and ors., as such, remedial measures were required to be taken. It is further pleaded that upon this, respondent requested that his request for shifting back of his shop from ISBT Narwal to General Bus Stand was pending and being considered by the competent Committee and outcome of the said decision will govern his right and the respondent shall await the outcome of the decision of the Committee. It is in view of the aforesaid position that the appellant-JDA did not challenge the said order. It has been pleaded in the application that respondent, without waiting for the outcome of the decision of the Steering Committee, filed the contempt petition before this Court and the appellant filed statement of facts in the said contempt petition. Further stand of the appellant is that simultaneously Steering Committee rejected the request of the respondent for shifting of his shop from ISBT to General B