1. ' BASHARAT AHM AD SHAIKH, J.---This is an appeal by leave of the Court for expunction of some remarks made about the appellant by the High Court.Facts of the case are that a writ petition was filed by Farhat Ali Mir seeking a declaration that under Rules of Business, the Law Department is competent to issue orders of appointments, promotions, etc., of the officers of the Law Department and that the Services and General Administration Department had no lawful authority to issue or cancel any such order. He also sought prohibitory order that the Government may be restrained from cancelling the promotion of the writ petitioner as Additional Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Department. The writ petition was admitted to regular hearing on 5th March, 1997. On the same day a file containing the summary for cancellation of the order of promotion of Farhat Ali Mir was requisitioned "from the Services Secretariat or any other Secretariat with whom the file is pending" Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Secretary, Services and General Administration Department were respondents in the case. The order for requisitioning the file was sent to Secretary, Services and General Administration Department. When the case came up for hearing on 8th of April, 1997 it transpired that the file had not been received in the High Court. Thereupon, an application was moved by Farhat Ali Mir that there has been a wilful disobedience of the order of the Court. It was also stated that the Secretary Services was out of Headquarters but the file was with the Additional Secretary, Services (Regulations). The post at that time was held by the appellant. Thereupon the learned Judge issued non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the appellant and S.H.O, Police Station Muzaffarabad was directed to produce the above- named officer alongwith the file before the High Court on the next day. It will be useful to reproduce the order:- "A file was summoned by this Court in this case on 5-3-1997 which has not been produced in the Court so far. An application has been moved by the petitioner that there has been a wilful disobedience of the order of the Court and that Secretary Services is out of H.Qs. Today but the file is with Additional Secretary, Services (Regulations), namely, Mr. Rashid Rathore. The summons seems to have been served on respondent No,2. The Additional Secretary Services (Regulations) should have taken care of the matter. He has failed to produce the file. In these circumstances, a non-bailable warrant shall be issued for the arrest of Mr. Rashid Rathore, Additional Secretary, Services (Regulations) Azad Kashmir Government, Muzaffarabad. S.H.O., Police Station Muzaffarabad is directed to produce the above named officer alongwith the file before this Court tomorrow."
2. ' However, the order of arrest was not executed and the appellant appeared before the High Court on the next day and submitted an application alognwith an affidavit that the file was not in his custody as it had been forwarded by the Secretary, Services and General Administration Department to the Chief Secretary on 3rd of March, 1997 when the writ petition had not yet been filed. Thereupon the Court gave him direction to "get the file from the Secretariat concerned" and produce the same before the Court on the same day. Leaving out facts which are not relevant it transpires from the record that subsequently the file was sent by the Private Secretary of the Chief Secretary to the High Court.
3. ' In this background certain remarks were made about the appellant by the High Court in two separate orders recorded on 23rd of April, 1997 and 22nd of May, 1997. The order of 23rd of April, 1997 is an interlocutory order. The adverse remarks about the appellant were as follows:-- "This is highhandedness of the Services Department (though not of Secretary), that an officer of the level of Additional Secretary, has not complied with the orders of the Court. In the ordinary course, he should have been put in jail till such time, the orders of the Court are complied with. But I like a lenient view for certain reasons and only direct Secretary, Services and General Administration to cause to produce the file so requisitioned by this Court by tomorrow."
4. The order of 22nd of May, 1997 by which the writ petition was partly accepted was passed by a Division Bench. The remarks which are sought to be expunged are as follows:-- "(i) A warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the Additional Secretary, Services (Regulations) for disobedience of the order of the Court who was stated to be in possession of file."
5. "(ii) The Single Bench of this Court avoided any action against the Additional Secretary showing a lenient view in the matter of disobedience of the order of the Court."
6. ' As already stated the appellant was not one of the respondents in the writ petition. Admittedly no order was sent to him to produce the file. The record of the High Court shows that at the relevant time the file was with the Chief Secretary and it was transmitted to the High Court by his Private Secretary. High Court has the power to requisition a file from the appellant but the order was sent to the Secretary, Services and General Administration Department. In presence of these facts we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, that the remarks recorded by the High Court were not justified. The High Court was not even justified in issuing an order for the arrest of the appellant. Therefore, the observations about arrest of the appellant are also not justified. We, therefore, accept the appeal and expunge the remarks which have been reproduced in this judgment.
7. ' Before parting with the case we have to deal with a technical objection. Initially Farhat Ali Mir and Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir were impleaded as respondents in the present appeal but subsequently an application was moved on 21st of July, 1997 in which it was prayed that Hon'ble Judges of the High Court may be impleaded as respondents. The application was accepted and Hon'ble Judges were added as respondent No,4. This has given rise to an objection about limitation. It was contended before us that in appeal against respondent No,4 was barred by time. So far as the order of 22nd of May, 1997 is concerned the petition for adding new respondents was within two months and is not barred by time. It is barred by time in respect of the earlier order, namely, the order passed by the learned single Judge on 2.Rd of April, 1997. We find that both the orders in which adverse remarks have been recorded are inextricably, interwoven and cannot be separated. Therefore, we condone the delay.
8. ' These are the reasons for the short order we passed on 16th of January, 1998.