J&K&L High Court Orders Survey Of Hotels, Coaching Centres & Commercial Establishments For Building & Fire Safety Violations

The Court has observed that municipal laws must be enforced uniformly and that allegations of selective action against one establishment while similarly situated violators continue to function unchecked raise serious concerns touching upon Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order of the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal concerning proceedings initiated by the Municipal authorities against a hotel owned by the respondent.

During the course of hearing, the respondent Hotel alleged that while action had been initiated against his establishment, numerous hotels, banquet halls, coaching centres and other commercial establishments operating with similar or even graver violations of municipal laws had been allowed to continue functioning without any meaningful action.

A Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, taking note of the material placed before it, observed,

"... The issues highlighted therein are not confined merely to the controversy between the parties but relate 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 writ petition, pending for more than three decades, arises out of proceedings initiated by the Municipal authorities concerning the hotel premises of respondent and challenges an order passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal.

During the hearing, respondent contended that the Municipal authorities had adopted a discriminatory "pick-and-choose" approach by proceeding against his establishment while permitting several similarly situated hotels, banquet halls, coaching institutes and other commercial establishments, allegedly operating without sanctioned building plans, mandatory parking facilities or other statutory compliances, to continue functioning unhindered.

It was argued that such selective enforcement defeated the object of municipal legislation and violated the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.

To substantiate these allegations, respondent relied upon information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which, according to him, revealed that a large number of commercial establishments within the municipal limits of Jammu lacked sanctioned building plans and mandatory parking facilities, yet no effective action had been initiated against many of them by the Municipal Corporation.

Taking note of these allegations, the High Court had earlier directed respondent to file a detailed supplementary affidavit identifying hotels lacking parking facilities, establishments operating without sanctioned building plans, commercial establishments functioning without mandatory parking, and indicating whether any action had been taken against such entities by the Municipal Corporation.

Respondent thereafter filed a comprehensive supplementary affidavit furnishing area-wise particulars based on information supplied by the Municipal Corporation itself under the RTI Act.

The petitioners responded by filing what the Court described as a general reply stating that notices had been issued to the identified establishments requiring them to produce sanctioned building plans and parking plans. However, according to the respondent, the reply failed to deal specifically with the particulars furnished in the supplementary affidavit.

The High Court observed that the controversy had assumed dimensions extending far beyond the dispute between the parties and raised important questions regarding uniform enforcement of municipal laws governing construction activities, sanctioned building plans, parking requirements, fire safety measures and planned urban development.

The Court noted that the supplementary affidavit furnished area-wise details of hotels lacking parking facilities, hotels operating without sanctioned building plans, establishments deficient in both respects and several commercial establishments where, despite alleged violations, no action had been taken by the Municipal Corporation. It also referred to information suggesting that in certain cases the Municipal Corporation had compounded violations allegedly more serious than those attributed to the respondent.

Examining the reply filed by the Municipal authorities, the Court found it wholly inadequate and observed,

"... It was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to have filed a detailed reply to the supplementary affidavit... giving details of action taken vis-à-vis each business/commercial establishment, banquet hall and tuition centre."

The Court further noted that although notices had admittedly been issued on May 20, 2024, more than two years had elapsed and nothing had been placed on record demonstrating any consequential action pursuant thereto. The Bench observed,

"Merely issuance of notice... does not suffice that the order passed by this Court... stands complied with in its letter and spirit, when no consequential action has been taken."

Holding that the issues raised involved public safety, planned urban development and effective enforcement of statutory obligations, the Court directed the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, to file a fresh and comprehensive affidavit responding to each allegation contained in the supplementary affidavit.

The Court directed the Commissioner to disclose, inter alia, the total number of hotels, commercial establishments and coaching institutes functioning within municipal limits, the number possessing valid building permissions and occupancy certificates, establishments constructed without sanctioned plans or in deviation thereof, establishments lacking mandatory parking facilities, buildings operating without valid fire safety clearances, the mechanism for periodic inspections and the action already taken against defaulting establishments, including sealing, demolition, prosecution and cancellation of permissions.

The Court also directed the Commissioner to place on record a time-bound action plan for ensuring compliance with statutory requirements across all establishments.

Further, the Court ordered the Municipal Corporation to undertake a comprehensive survey of all hotels, commercial establishments, coaching institutes and other buildings catering to the public to identify establishments functioning without sanctioned building plans, mandatory parking facilities, valid fire safety clearances or any other statutory permission required under law.

Upon completion of the survey, the Court directed issuance of fresh notices wherever necessary and mandated that proceedings against every defaulting establishment be initiated and concluded strictly in accordance with law, without discrimination. It further directed the Commissioner to coordinate with the Director, Fire and Emergency Services, Vice-Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, Inspector General of Police (Traffic) and other concerned departments to ensure coordinated enforcement of municipal regulations, parking norms and fire safety requirements.

The Court directed the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, to file the comprehensive affidavit within two weeks and granted respondent one week thereafter to file a response. It further warned that in the event of non-compliance, the Commissioner would be required to remain personally present before the Court on the next date of hearing along with the relevant records.

Case Title: Administrator, Jammu Municipality & Anr. v. Surat Singh & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment.