HC rejects private schools panel plea, refuses to condone 10-year delay
10/04/2026
JAMMU, Apr 9: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected a plea by the All J&K Unaided Private School Coordination Committee seeking condonation of a 3,633-day delay in filing an intra-court appeal against a 2016 judgment, holding that no sufficient cause was shown for the prolonged lapse.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed the order while dealing with an application in LPA No. 52/2026. The petitioner had also sought condonation of a 545-day delay in filing an appeal against a September 2, 2024 order dismissing its application for implementation of the 2016 judgment.
According to court records, the committee had originally filed a writ petition seeking quashing of a January 15, 2016 direction issued by the Director School Education, Kashmir, and a January 20, 2016 circular issued by the Board of School Education. It had also sought compliance with the Supreme Court's directions on school safety in the Avinash Malhotra vs Union of India case.
The Bench noted that the writ petition was dismissed on February 10, 2016, while granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the January 15, 2016 direction separately. Authorities were also directed to ensure implementation of safety measures for students in accordance with law and the Supreme Court judgment.
However, instead of availing the remedy, the petitioner later filed an application seeking implementation of the same judgment, which was dismissed on September 2, 2024.
Observing that the application disclosed no cause, "much less sufficient cause," for challenging the 2016 order after nearly a decade, the court also pointed out that the applicant had relied on the same order in subsequent proceedings, indicating that it did not consider itself aggrieved at the relevant time.
The Bench further found no justification for condoning the 545-day delay in filing the appeal against the 2024 order and held that the petitioner could not adopt contradictory positions during different stages of litigation.
Holding the plea devoid of merit, the court dismissed both the condonation application and the accompanying appeal, while leaving the committee free to avail any other remedy available under law.
Share This Story |
|
Comment On This Story |
|
|
|
|