Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sanjay Kumar & Ors vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 22 May, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Serial No. 80
Supplementary List-1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM No. 3145/2026 in
WP(C) No. 655/2021
Sanjay Kumar & Ors.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K & Ors.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Assisting Counsel to
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Mr. Sumeet Bhaita, GA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
(22.05.2026)
CM No. 3145/2026
01. In terms of an order dated 11.05.2026, this Court came
to direct service of respondent No. 2-National Legal
Services Authority-(NALSA) in the face of the fact that
there was no clear cut office reporting about the service
status of the respondent No. 2. The case came to be
posted on 04.07.2026.
02. The application CM No. 3145/2026 has come to be filed
by the petitioners seeking preponement of the main case.
03. The application bears reference in para-3 that with
respect to respondent No. 2, order dated 15.09.2025
refers to the fact of Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, learned
Government Advocate making a statement that the reply
2
CM No. 3145/2026 in
WP(C) No. 655/2021
filed on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 4 to be
treated as reply on behalf of respondent No. 2 as well.
04. Today, this Court has called upon Mr. Sumeet Bhatia,
learned Government Advocate to apprise this Court as to
on whose authority he came to cause appearance in the
matter of submission of reply on behalf of the respondent
No. 2.
05. Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, learned Government Advocate, while
representing the respondents No. 3 and 4, apprises this
Court that there was an e-mail dated 13.08.2025 from
the respondent No. 2-National Legal Services Authority-
(NALSA) to J&K State Legal Services Authority i.e., the
respondent No. 3 whereby it came to be conveyed that
the reply submitted on behalf of the respondents No. 3
and 4 to the writ petition be adopted on behalf of the
respondent No. 2 as well and for that purpose Mr.
Sumeet Bhatia, learned Government Advocate
representing the respondents No. 3 and 4 was requested
to convey the same to the High Court.
06. The only thing which Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, as a
Government Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4,
was meant to do is to convey that reply on behalf of the
respondents No. 3 and 4 be read as reply on behalf of the
respondent No. 2 but that does not clothe Mr. Sumeet
Bhatia, learned Government Advocate with authority to
continue to represent the respondent No. 2 without a
proper authorization coming forth to said effect from the
respondent No. 2-National Legal Services Authority-
(NALSA) and therefore, this Court calls upon Mr. Sumeet
Bhatia, learned Government Advocate to take up the
matter for the purpose of getting a proper authorization.
3
CM No. 3145/2026 in
WP(C) No. 655/2021
07. This Court sees no good reason for preponement of the
case, particularly, when Mr. Sumeet Bhaita, learned
Government Advocate has been called upon to get proper
authorization in his favour for the purpose of
representing the respondent No. 2 by reference to whom
the writ relief is being referred to by the petitioners in the
context of supply and availability of funds.
08. The application CM No. 3145/2026 is accordingly,
dismissed.
09. List the main case on the date already fixed i.e.,
04.07.2026.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
22.05.2026
SUNIL
