Page:Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India and Ors.pdf/20

 asked to go into the question of the validity of orders, restricting movement and communication, passed in the State of Jammu and Kashmir by various authorities, however, the orders are not before us. The Petitioners and Intervenors claim that the orders were not available, which is why they could not place them on record.

12. At the same time, while the non-­availability of orders was not denied by the Respondent-­State, they did not produce the said orders. In fact, when this Court by order dated 16.10.2019 asked them to produce the orders, the Respondent-­State placed on record only sample orders, citing difficulty in producing the numerous orders which were being withdrawn and modified on a day-­to-­day basis. The Respondent-­State also claimed that the plea to produce orders by the Petitioners was an expansion of the scope of the present petitions.

13. At the outset, a perusal of the prayers in the Writ Petitions before us should be sufficient to reject the aforementioned contention of the Respondent­-State. In W.P. (C) No. 1164 of 2019 and I.A no. 157139 in I.A. no. 139555 of 2019 in W.P. (C) No. 1031 of 2019, a prayer has been made to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce all 20