The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has warned that it may initiate appropriate coercive proceedings against senior government officials if its directions concerning a comprehensive survey and enforcement action against establishments violating building, parking and fire-safety requirements are not complied with. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed the order after finding that the affidavit submitted by the Jammu Municipal Corporation was deficient and did not adequately address the specific directions previously issued by the Court. The Court has now directed the Commissioner of the Jammu Municipal Corporation to submit a fresh and comprehensive affidavit setting out the steps already taken or proposed to be taken against all defaulting establishments, together with a definite timeline for completion of the exercise.
The proceedings relate to the implementation of the Court's earlier directions concerning hotels, commercial establishments, coaching institutes and other buildings catering to the public within the jurisdiction of the Jammu Municipal Corporation. The Court had directed the authorities to undertake a comprehensive survey of such establishments and identify those functioning without sanctioned building plans, those operating in violation of sanctioned plans, those lacking mandatory parking facilities and those functioning without valid Fire Safety Clearance or No Objection Certificate. The purpose of the exercise was to identify establishments that were not complying with the applicable requirements and to ensure that appropriate proceedings were initiated against them.
The earlier directions required the Commissioner of the Jammu Municipal Corporation to conduct the survey and identify establishments functioning without sanctioned building plans. The authorities were also required to identify buildings where construction had taken place in violation of the sanctioned plans. In addition, establishments operating without mandatory parking facilities and those without valid Fire Safety Clearance or NOC were required to be identified. The Court directed that the exercise cover the establishments falling within the jurisdiction of the Jammu Municipal Corporation and that action be taken against those found to be in default.
The Court had further directed that proceedings against defaulting establishments should be initiated without discrimination. Depending upon the nature of the violations and wherever warranted, the measures contemplated by the Court included sealing of premises, demolition of unauthorised constructions, withdrawal of permissions, closure of establishments, prosecution and recovery of penalties. Thus, the earlier directions were not limited to identifying violations but also required the authorities to take appropriate enforcement measures against establishments found to be operating contrary to the applicable requirements.
When the matter was taken up, the Court considered the affidavit filed by the Jammu Municipal Corporation in response to the earlier directions. The counsel appearing for the concerned respondent submitted that the affidavit was not in conformity with the Court's order. The High Court also found that the affidavit did not adequately address the specific requirements that had been laid down in the earlier order. Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner of the Jammu Municipal Corporation to file a fresh affidavit strictly in conformity with the directions already issued.
The fresh affidavit is required to disclose the steps already taken or proposed to be taken against all the defaulting establishments identified during the earlier proceedings. The Court has specifically required the Commissioner to provide details regarding the action being undertaken against such establishments instead of merely submitting a general statement regarding compliance. The affidavit must therefore contain the necessary information concerning the enforcement measures being taken or proposed against establishments found to be in violation of the requirements relating to construction, parking and fire safety.
The Court has also required the authorities to provide a concrete timeline for completing the exercise. The earlier directions required the Commissioner to place on record details regarding the number of establishments within the Jammu Municipal Corporation limits, the number having valid building permissions and completion or occupancy certificates, deviations from sanctioned plans, parking deficiencies and fire-safety violations. The Commissioner was also required to provide a time-bound action plan showing how compliance with the statutory requirements would be ensured.
The High Court has reiterated that the fresh affidavit must specifically indicate the steps already taken or proposed to be taken and the timeline for completion of the exercise contemplated by the earlier directions. The Court therefore expects the Commissioner to provide a clear account of the enforcement process and the period within which the exercise is expected to be completed. The requirement of a definite timeline forms part of the Court's directions concerning compliance with its earlier order.
The Court's decision to issue a warning concerning coercive proceedings followed its finding that the compliance affidavit was deficient. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal granted one week's time for filing the fresh affidavit. At the same time, the Court made it clear that failure to comply with its directions could result in appropriate coercive proceedings against the senior officials responsible for implementation.
The officials specifically named in the Court's warning are the Commissioner of the 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). The Court stated that if its directions were not complied with, it would be constrained to initiate appropriate coercive proceedings against these officials. The warning was therefore directed at the senior officials associated with the implementation of the directions concerning the establishments covered by the proceedings.
The Court's earlier directions involve several departments and authorities because the issues under consideration concern different aspects of compliance. Building permissions and deviations from sanctioned plans fall within the municipal and development framework, while Fire Safety Clearance and NOCs concern the Fire and Emergency Services. Parking and traffic-related requirements also involve the relevant authorities. The latest order requires effective implementation of the earlier directions by the departments concerned.
The Court also directed the concerned senior law officers to remain present on the next date of hearing. Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli and senior counsel Adarsh Sharma were directed to appear before the Court. Their appearance was directed so that the Court could be apprised of the effective implementation of its earlier directions and the steps taken by the concerned departments in furtherance of those directions.
The presence of the senior law officers is therefore connected with the Court's examination of compliance. The Court intends to consider the fresh affidavit and the steps taken by the relevant authorities to implement its earlier directions. The officers have been directed to assist the Court in assessing whether the directions concerning the survey, identification of violations and enforcement action are being effectively implemented.
The earlier order required information concerning the total number of establishments falling within the jurisdiction of the Jammu Municipal Corporation. The authorities were also required to provide details concerning establishments possessing valid building permissions and completion or occupancy certificates. In addition, information was required regarding deviations from sanctioned building plans, deficiencies in parking facilities and violations of fire-safety requirements. These details were to form part of the exercise directed by the Court.
The issue of building permissions is one of the principal matters covered by the Court's directions. Establishments functioning without sanctioned building plans were required to be identified. The authorities were also directed to identify establishments where construction had deviated from the plans that had been sanctioned. Such violations were to be addressed through appropriate proceedings in accordance with the directions issued by the Court.
Parking deficiencies form another category of violations covered by the directions. Establishments that did not provide mandatory parking facilities were required to be identified during the comprehensive survey. The information concerning such deficiencies was required to be placed before the Court, along with details of the action proposed or taken against the establishments concerned.
Fire-safety compliance was also specifically included in the survey. The authorities were required to identify establishments that did not possess valid Fire Safety Clearance or NOC. The Court's earlier directions required appropriate proceedings against establishments that were found to be operating without the required fire-safety clearance. The latest order requires the authorities to demonstrate what steps have been taken or are proposed against such establishments.
The Court's directions also cover establishments such as hotels, commercial establishments, coaching institutes and other buildings catering to the public. These establishments fall within the scope of the comprehensive survey directed by the Court. The authorities are required to determine whether such establishments possess the required building permissions, whether their construction conforms to sanctioned plans, whether mandatory parking facilities are available and whether valid fire-safety clearance has been obtained.
Where violations are identified, the earlier directions contemplate various forms of enforcement action. These include sealing of premises, demolition of unauthorised constructions, withdrawal of permissions, closure, prosecution and recovery of penalties wherever warranted. The Court had specifically directed that appropriate proceedings be initiated against every defaulting establishment without discrimination. The fresh affidavit is required to indicate the steps taken or proposed to be taken in accordance with these directions.
The latest order therefore focuses on compliance with the Court's earlier directions rather than making a fresh determination concerning any individual establishment. The immediate issue before the Court was the inadequacy of the affidavit filed by the Jammu Municipal Corporation. Since the affidavit did not adequately address the specific requirements contained in the earlier directions, the Court required a fresh and comprehensive affidavit containing the necessary information and an identifiable timeline.
The Court granted one week's time for filing the fresh affidavit. The Commissioner of the Jammu Municipal Corporation is required to ensure that the new affidavit strictly conforms to the earlier directions. It must disclose the steps already taken or proposed against all defaulting establishments identified in the proceedings and must specify the timeline for completion of the exercise.
The warning concerning coercive proceedings is conditional upon further non-compliance. The Court has made clear that failure to comply with the directions could result in proceedings against the senior officials specifically identified in the order. These officials include the Commissioner of the 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).
The Court has also directed the Registry to immediately forward a copy of the order to the concerned senior officials for compliance. Copies are to be sent to the Commissioner of the 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). The direction ensures that the concerned authorities are informed of the requirements contained in the latest order.
The matter has been listed for further hearing as the first case on the next date. By then, the fresh affidavit is expected to have been filed, containing the details required by the Court concerning the defaulting establishments, the enforcement steps taken or proposed and the timeline for completing the exercise. The senior law officers have also been directed to appear and assist the Court in assessing the implementation of the earlier directions.
The proceedings are titled ADM, Jammu Municipality & Anr. v. Surat Singh & Anr. and are being considered by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The proceedings concern compliance with directions relating to illegal constructions, building permissions, parking facilities and fire-safety requirements applicable to establishments within the jurisdiction of the Jammu Municipal Corporation.
The High Court has consequently required the Jammu Municipal Corporation to provide a comprehensive and specific account of compliance. The fresh affidavit must identify the steps taken or proposed against defaulting establishments and specify the timeline for completing the exercise. The Court has also required the concerned senior law officers to appear and assist it in assessing implementation by the relevant departments.
The Court's warning makes clear that continued failure to comply with its directions may result in appropriate coercive proceedings against the senior officials concerned. The proceedings will continue with consideration of the fresh affidavit, the steps taken by the authorities and the implementation of the directions concerning establishments operating without sanctioned plans, in violation of sanctioned plans, without mandatory parking facilities or without valid Fire Safety Clearance or NOC.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.