Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Cm No. 5457/2024 vs Sandeep Sharma on 20 April, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1087-DB
Serial No. 17
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case No. LPA No. 190/2024 in
WP(C) No. 896/2020
CM No. 5457/2024, 5458/2024
Pronounced on: 20.04.2026.
Uploaded on: 22.04.2026.
UT of J&K and others .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with
Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting Counsel.
vs
Sandeep Sharma ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
20.04.2026
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 1563 days in
assailing the judgment dated 18.03.2020 rendered by the learned Writ
Court in WP(C) No. 896/2020 titled “Dr. Sandeep Sharma vs. UT of
J&K and others“.
2. It is stated that pursuant to the directions issued by the Single Judge in
CCP(S) No. 166/2021, a Committee was constituted by the Chief
Engineer, JKDC vide order dated 22.09.2022 and it was found by the
Committee that the consumer, namely, Dr. Sandeep Sharma was billed
on Flat Rate basis for the period December, 2018 to February 2019,
whereas the consumer was to be charged for demand charges only
LPA No. 190/2024
in WP(C) No. 896/2020 Page 1 of 4
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1087-DB
(due to locking of installation). Accordingly, the Revised Assessment
Sheet was framed after taking into consideration the Demand Charges
for three months i.e. December 2018 to February 2019 and instead of
flat rate of Rs. 15,73,001/-, a balance of Rs. 7,77,099/- was found to be
due. It is further stated the Amnesty Scheme cannot be extended to the
respondent, as the period of scheme has already expired and more so,
no representation for availing the benefit under the Scheme was
submitted by the consumer when the scheme was in vogue. It is also
pleaded that the matter was referred to the Administrative Department
and as the Amnesty Scheme was closed it was decided to prefer intra-
court appeal.
3. The respondent has filed response, thereby stating that the order dated
18.03.2020 was duly served upon the appellants/applicants and despite
being aware of the order passed by the learned Writ Court, the
appellants/applicants chose to file the appeal after a lapse of four years
from the date of the order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The record depicts that this application for condonation of delay along
with the appeal was filed on 31.08.2024 and admittedly there is delay
of 1563 days in filing the appeal. It is admitted by the applicants in the
application seeking condonation of delay that a Committee was
constituted on 22.09.2022, as a result of which, an amount of Rs.
15,73,001/-, initially payable by the respondent was reduced to Rs.
7,77,099/-. Thus, it is evident that the applicants initially chose to
comply with the judgment, however, it appears that suddenly there
LPA No. 190/2024
in WP(C) No. 896/2020 Page 2 of 4
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1087-DB
was change of heart of the appellants/applicants and they chose to
assail the judgment dated 18.03.2020 only in the year 2024. It is stated
by the appellants/applicants that detailed compliance report has been
filed in the contempt petition.
6. Applicants were well aware about the judgment and even constituted a
Committee to comply with the judgment and suddenly thereafter, they
decided to assail the judgment.
7. After examining the application for condoning the delay of 1563 days
in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 18.03.2020, we find no
plausible or convincing reason to condone the inordinate delay.
8. Reliance is placed upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in case titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing
Board and Ors, reported in 2025 INSC 1104, wherein paragraph No.
263, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
“263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a
sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than
the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the
plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest
against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-
exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be
disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party
litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable
to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the
present case, it reopens the lis for another round of
litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As
courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that
a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.”
9. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay along with
the accompanying appeal is dismissed, however, the applicants are
left free to put forth their case with regard to compliance of the
LPA No. 190/2024
in WP(C) No. 896/2020 Page 3 of 4
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1087-DB
judgment dated 18.03.2020 rendered by the learned Writ Court, in the
contempt proceedings.
10. Disposed of along with the connected applications.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
20.04.2026
Sahil Padha
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.
LPA No. 190/2024
in WP(C) No. 896/2020 Page 4 of 4
