Serial No.137

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

M/s Anmol Health Care, Samba

….. Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. J.A. Hamal, Advocate & Mr. Rajnish

Singh Parihar, Advocate

Vs

UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate

Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate vice

Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

ORDER

(24.12.2025)

1. In response to the submissions made from the end of

learned counsel Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate arguing for the petitioner with respect to subject matter of adjudication related to the writ petition, the respondent No.3’s learned counsel Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate had come forward with an objection about very entertainability as well as maintainability of the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India by citing the mandate as set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its three-judge bench judgment in the case of “Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan Vs Union of India & Ors.,

(2012) 8 SCC 326” by particular reference to para (40) &

(41). Para 40 & 41 are reproduced