SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the Jammu Municipal Corporation Commissioner and concerned departments to submit a fresh, comprehensive affidavit detailing action taken or proposed against establishments violating building, parking and fire-safety norms, warning that failure to comply could lead to coercive proceedings against senior officials.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed the directions on August 27, 2026, in OWP No. 122/2002, after the court was informed that the affidavit submitted pursuant to its July 2 order did not adequately comply with the directions issued.
The court directed that a better affidavit be filed before the next hearing, specifically setting out the measures already taken or proposed against the defaulting establishments and a timeline for completing the exercise. The matter has been listed for September 3, 2026, as case No. 1.
The Bench warned that failure to comply could compel it to initiate “appropriate coercive proceedings” against the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation; the Director, Fire and Emergency Services; the Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority; and the Inspector General of Police (Traffic).
The matter concerns the implementation of directions issued by the court on July 2, when the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, was ordered to undertake a comprehensive survey of hotels, commercial establishments, coaching institutes and other public-facing buildings within the corporation’s jurisdiction.
The earlier order required authorities to identify establishments operating without sanctioned building plans or in violation of approved plans, those lacking mandatory parking facilities, and those functioning without valid fire-safety clearance or with inadequate fire-safety measures. The survey was also required to identify establishments operating without other mandatory statutory permissions, licences or clearances.
The July 2 directions further required the Corporation to issue fresh notices to defaulting establishments where necessary and take action strictly in accordance with law, including sealing, demolition of unauthorised constructions, withdrawal of permissions, closure, prosecution and recovery of penalties wherever warranted.
The court had also directed the Commissioner to coordinate with the Director, Fire and Emergency Services, Vice Chairman of the Jammu Development Authority, Inspector General of Police (Traffic) and other departments to ensure coordinated enforcement of building, parking and fire-safety regulations.
On August 27, senior advocate Rahul Pant, appearing for respondent No. 1, submitted that the affidavit filed in the matter was deficient and did not address the specific requirements laid down in the July 2 order. He sought a fresh affidavit strictly complying with the court’s directions.
The court recorded that the affidavit was required to specify the number of establishments within the JMC jurisdiction, those possessing building permissions and occupancy or completion certificates, violations of sanctioned plans, deficiencies in parking and fire-safety arrangements, periodic inspection mechanisms and action taken against defaulters.
It was also required to contain a “time-bound action plan” covering the survey, identification of violations, issuance of notices and consequential enforcement action.
Taking note of the submissions, Justice Nargal directed the concerned authorities to ensure that the fresh affidavit addressed the directions in their entirety. The court also directed Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli and senior counsel Adarsh Sharma to appear at the next hearing and apprise it of the steps taken by the concerned departments.
The court ordered that the fresh affidavit be filed before September 3, with an advance copy provided to the counsel for the respondents.
Advocate Mayank Gupta appeared for the petitioners. Senior advocate Rahul Pant, assisted by advocate Arindham Sharma, appeared for respondent No. 1, while Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, assisted by advocate Chetna Manhas, represented respondent No. 2.
