Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC Asks Municipal Commissioner To Undertake Survey Of Commercial Establishments For Effective Implementation Of Municipal Laws

The High Court was considering a litigation which ensued over a period of more than three decades. The matter emanated from the proceedings initiated by the Municipal authorities in relation to the hotel premises of the first respondent, culminating in the order passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

The Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal ordered, “In these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, to file a fresh and comprehensive affidavit responding to the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent No.1 by furnishing the details of the action taken in pursuance of the notices issued to each defaulting establishment, area-wise and in the same manner in which the particulars have been furnished in the supplementary affidavit.”

“In the meantime, the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, shall undertake a comprehensive survey of all hotels, commercial establishments, coaching institutes and other buildings catering to the public within its jurisdiction and identify those establishments which are: (i) Functioning without sanctioned building plans or in violation thereof; (ii) Lacking the mandatory parking facilities prescribed under the applicable laws, Building Bye-laws and other statutory regulations”, it directed.

Advocate Mayank Gupta represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Rahul Pant represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the respondent that he had been subjected to a discriminatory exercise of statutory powers by the Municipal authorities and while proceedings had been initiated against the establishment of the respondent, several similarly situated hotels, banquet halls, coaching centres and other commercial establishments, allegedly suffering from identical or even more serious deficiencies relating to sanctioned building plans, parking facilities and other statutory compliances, continued to operate without any meaningful action having been taken against them.

Reasoning

The respondent was directed to file the supplementary affidavit furnishing the requisite information. The Bench noted that the respondent had furnished area-wise details of hotels which did not have parking facilities, hotels which did not possess sanctioned building plans, as well as hotels which neither had sanctioned building plans nor the requisite parking facilities and against whom no action had been taken by the Municipal Corporation.

On a perusal of the supplementary affidavit, the Bench noted that the issues highlighted were not confined merely to the controversy between the parties but related to the uniform enforcement of municipal laws governing construction activities, sanctioned building plans, parking requirements and other statutory obligations within the municipal limits of Jammu. The material placed before the Court also raised issues concerning public safety, planned urban development and strict compliance with the statutory provisions regulating construction and use of buildings within the jurisdiction of the Jammu Municipal Corporation.

The Bench was of the view that it was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to have filed a detailed reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent, column-wise, giving details of action taken vis-à-vis each business/commercial establishments/ banquet halls/ tuition centers and also the requisite action taken in which there was no sanctioned plan or, for that matter, the parking space.

“The petitioners on their own have chosen to issue fresh notice to all the parties, when there was no such direction by this Court and instead the Court desired the action taken by the petitioners with respect to each and every business/commercial establishments/ banquet halls/ tuition centers, where there was any deficiency, whether it pertained to sanction plan or for that matter the parking space”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that although there was no specific direction by the Court to issue a fresh notice to the defaulters, yet a duty was cast upon the petitioners to have apprised the Court of the action taken pursuant to the fresh notice issued by the petitioners, which had been placed on record along with the reply filed by the petitioners to such supplementary affidavit.

The Bench further noted that the notice had been issued to all the parties way back on May 20, 2024, and more than two years have lapsed since then, and till date, there was nothing on record justifying the action taken by the petitioners in furtherance of the said notice. The Bench thus asked the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, to file a comprehensive affidavit indicating the total number of hotels, commercial establishments, coaching institutes and similarly situated buildings functioning within the jurisdiction of the Jammu Municipal Corporation.

The Bench has also asked the Corporation to clarify whether periodic inspections are undertaken by the Jammu Municipal Corporation and other competent authorities to ensure compliance with municipal laws, building regulations and fire safety norms, and the mechanism adopted for carrying out such inspections. The Bench asked the Commissioner to undertake a comprehensive survey of all hotels, commercial establishments, coaching institutes and other buildings catering to the public.

The matter has now been listed for July 30, 2026.

Cause Title: Adm. Jammu Municipality & Anr v. Surat Singh & Anr (Case No.: OWP No. 122/2002)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Mayank Gupta

Respondent: Senior Advocate Rahul Pant, Advocate Anirudh Sharma

Click here to read/download Order