Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Oct 14: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today came down heavily on senior Government functionaries for their willful defiance of a binding judicial order, framing rule (Robkar) against Santosh D Vaidya, Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, for contempt of court.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while hearing a contempt petition filed by Karamat Ullah Malik, observed that the conduct of the Finance Secretary reflected “scant respect for the orders of the court” and amounted to “deliberate and willful disobedience” of directions that had attained finality after dismissal of the Union Territory’s appeal.
The contempt proceedings arose from the non-compliance of a May 28, 2024 judgment, wherein the High Court had directed the Government to release Rs 68.50 lakh in favour of the petitioner within six weeks. The order had further stipulated that if the amount was not paid within the prescribed time, the respondents would also be liable to pay 9% interest from September 30, 2021—the date of filing of the original writ petition.
However, despite the lapse of several months and dismissal of a subsequent Letter Patent Appeal by the Division Bench, the amount remained unpaid, compelling the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings.
The High Court noted that though the District Development Commissioner (DDC) Rajouri, Abhishek Sharma, had taken steps by writing to the Rural Development Department and the Finance Department including communications dated June 11 and October 11, 2025 seeking release of funds, no action was taken by higher authorities.
Justice Nargal observed that respondent departments were “adopting dilly-dally tactics by shifting onus on each other” and indulging in “uncalled-for correspondence” aimed at frustrating the petitioner’s lawful claim.
“It is amply clear that all the respondents are adopting delaying tactics with this court by shifting responsibility on each other with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioner and to frustrate the judgment earned by him,” the court noted in its strongly worded order.
The High Court expressed strong displeasure at the conduct of Finance Secretary Santosh D Vaidya, who failed to appear before the court despite repeated directions dated August 18 and September 26, 2025.
His earlier application seeking exemption from personal appearance was rejected after it was found that the accompanying affidavit had been sworn by an Under Secretary instead of the contemnor himself. Yet, even on October 10, another exemption plea was moved—this time citing the officer’s presence in Srinagar which was again rejected by the court as unjustified.
Justice Nargal recorded that the Finance Secretary “has shown scant respect to the orders passed by this court” and “has not bothered to appear or comply with the directions despite sufficient opportunities”.
The High Court took a serious view of the respondents’ move to file a review petition after losing the appeal, observing that such a step appeared to be a deliberate attempt to protract the contempt proceedings rather than to seek bona fide relief.
“Merely filing of a review petition does not render the order of the writ court ineffective”, the High Court ruled, stressing that in absence of a stay order, the authorities were legally bound to comply with the judgment.
Finding prima facie grounds of contempt, Justice Nargal directed the Registry to frame rule (Robkar) against Finance Secretary Santosh D Vaidya, requiring him to explain within two weeks why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate and willful non-compliance.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 3, 2025.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
