J&K High Court Orders Jammu Municipal Corporation to Explain Selective Action Against Hotel, Commercial Premises Over Building Plan and Parking Violations

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal directed the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, to file a comprehensive affidavit on action taken against establishments lacking sanctioned building plans, parking facilities, and fire safety clearances — after the Corporation's one-page reply to a detailed supplementary affidavit was found wholly inadequate.

A writ petition that has been pending before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh for over two decades took a decisive turn on 2 July 2026. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, sitting singly at Jammu, issued a series of detailed directions to the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, after finding that the Corporation had failed to respond meaningfully to a supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent. The original dispute arose from proceedings against the hotel premises of respondent Surat Singh, which culminated in an order dated 18 June 2001 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal. The respondent's core argument throughout the proceedings has been that the Municipal authorities singled him out while leaving similarly placed hotels, banquet halls, and coaching centres untouched — a pattern he described as a pick-and-choose policy that offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

A Three-Decade Dispute Over Discriminatory Municipal Enforcement

The writ petition, filed in 2002, challenges the Special Tribunal's order of 18 June 2001. During the long course of hearing, counsel for respondent No. 1 consistently argued that while enforcement action was initiated against his hotel, a large number of similarly situated establishments within Jammu's municipal limits were operating without sanctioned building plans and without the mandatory parking facilities prescribed under the applicable Building Bye-laws and statutory regulations.

To substantiate this claim, the respondent obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. That information, the respondent contended, showed that many hotels, banquet halls, tuition and coaching centres continued to function in violation of the same requirements that were being used to proceed against him. He further placed on record details of establishments where the Jammu Municipal Corporation had compounded violations that, he argued, were more serious than those alleged against him.

The respondent's case, in essence, is that such selective enforcement “defeats the very object of the municipal laws” and falls foul of the constitutional mandate of equality under Article 14.

Court's August 2023 Direction and the Supplementary Affidavit

To test whether the allegation of selective enforcement was borne out from official records, the Court by its order dated 21 August 2023 directed respondent No. 1 to file a detailed supplementary affidavit covering four specific categories:

• Hotels that do not have parking space;
• Hotels that do not have sanctioned building plans;
• Hotels lacking both parking space and sanctioned building plans against whom no action has been taken; and
• Business and commercial establishments, banquet halls, and tuition or coaching centres without parking facilities, and whether any action has been taken against them.

The respondent filed the supplementary affidavit on 20 December 2023, furnishing area-wise details across all four categories. The Court, after examining the affidavit, found that it set out particulars regarding establishments without parking, establishments without sanctioned plans, and those suffering from both deficiencies, along with the Corporation's inaction in several cases.

The Corporation's One-Page Reply Falls Short

The petitioners — the Municipal authorities — filed a response to the supplementary affidavit. The Court found this response to be a single-page generalised reply stating that notices had been issued to all establishments mentioned in the supplementary affidavit, calling upon them to produce sanctioned building plans and parking plans within twenty-one days. A draft notice was placed on record as an annexure.

The Court was unimpressed. It observed that the petitioners were required to file a detailed, column-wise reply addressing the action taken against each commercial establishment, banquet hall, and coaching centre where deficiencies were identified — whether relating to the absence of a sanctioned plan or the absence of parking space. Instead, the Corporation chose to issue a fresh notice to all parties on 20 May 2024, a step for which there was no specific direction from the Court.

The Court noted that more than two years had passed since the notice of 20 May 2024 was issued, and nothing on record indicated what consequential action, if any, had been taken in pursuance of those notices. As the Court put it, if action had been taken, “the said information has been kept as a guarded secret and not provided to this Court.”

Scope of the Directions: Survey, Affidavit, and Inter-Departmental Coordination

Treating the matter as raising issues that go beyond the bilateral dispute between the parties, the Court held that the material before it concerns the uniform enforcement of municipal laws across Jammu — touching on public safety, planned urban development, and statutory compliance with building and land-use regulations.

The Court directed the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, to file a fresh and comprehensive affidavit addressing the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent. The affidavit must furnish area-wise details in the same format used by the respondent, and must specifically cover:

• The total number of hotels, commercial establishments, coaching institutes, and similarly situated buildings within the Corporation's jurisdiction;
• The number of such establishments that hold building permission and an occupancy or completion certificate;
• The number found to have raised construction in deviation from, or without, a sanctioned building plan, with the nature and extent of deviations;
• The number lacking mandatory parking facilities under the applicable Building Bye-laws, the Master Plan, and statutory regulations;
• The number operating without a valid Fire Safety Clearance or No Objection Certificate from the Fire and Emergency Services Department, or with deficient fire safety installations;
• Whether periodic inspections are undertaken, and the mechanism adopted for carrying them out; and
• The action already taken against defaulting establishments, including issuance of notices, sealing, demolition, prosecution, cancellation of permissions, and any other coercive measures permitted under law.

The Commissioner must also place on record a time-bound action plan for ensuring compliance by all such establishments.

In the interim, the Court directed the Commissioner to undertake a comprehensive survey of all hotels, commercial establishments, coaching institutes, and other buildings catering to the public within the Corporation's jurisdiction. The survey must identify establishments functioning without sanctioned building plans or in violation thereof, lacking mandatory parking, operating without valid fire safety clearances, and functioning without any other mandatory statutory licence or permission.

After the survey, fresh notices must be issued wherever not already issued, calling upon defaulting establishments to explain violations and rectify deficiencies within the period prescribed under the relevant statutory provisions. Where notices were already issued on 20 May 2024, the action taken in pursuance of those notices must be placed on record. Thereafter, the Court directed that appropriate proceedings be initiated and concluded against every defaulting establishment “without discrimination” — including, wherever warranted, sealing, demolition of unauthorised constructions, withdrawal of permissions, closure, prosecution, and recovery of penalties.

The Commissioner was also directed to coordinate with the Director of Fire and Emergency Services, the Vice Chairman of the Jammu Development Authority, and the Inspector General of Police (Traffic) to ensure effective and coordinated enforcement of building regulations, parking norms, and fire safety requirements.

Outcome

The Court directed the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, to file the comprehensive affidavit within two weeks from 2 July 2026. Upon filing, respondent No. 1 will be at liberty to file a response within one week. The matter has been listed on 30 July 2026 as Case No. 1 on a hearing day.

The Court added a pointed direction: if the Commissioner fails to comply within the stipulated period, he shall remain personally present before the Court on the next date of hearing along with the relevant record.

The Registry was directed to furnish a copy of the order to the Commissioner of Jammu Municipal Corporation, the Director of Fire and Emergency Services, the Vice Chairman of the Jammu Development Authority, and the Inspector General of Police (Traffic) for information and immediate compliance. The Commissioner was further directed to circulate copies to all other concerned authorities and stakeholders.

Respondent No. 1 was represented by Mr. Rahul Pant, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. The petitioners were represented by Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate.