The matter originated from a writ petition that has been pending for more than three decades. The petition challenges an order passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal concerning proceedings initiated by the municipal authorities against a hotel owned by the respondent. During the hearing the respondent contended that while action had been taken against his establishment, numerous other hotels, banquet halls, coaching centres and similar commercial establishments operating with comparable or more serious violations of municipal laws were being allowed to function without any meaningful intervention.
The respondent asserted that the municipal authorities had adopted a discriminatory pick‑and‑choose approach, proceeding against his hotel while permitting other establishments that allegedly lacked sanctioned building plans, mandatory parking facilities or other statutory compliances to continue operating unhindered. He 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 the respondent relied on information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He claimed that the data revealed a large number of commercial establishments within the municipal limits of Jammu that lacked sanctioned building plans and mandatory parking facilities, yet no effective action had been initiated against many of them by the Municipal Corporation.
Court’s Directions for a Supplementary Affidavit
Taking note of the allegations, the High Court earlier directed the respondent to file a detailed supplementary affidavit. The affidavit was required to identify hotels lacking parking facilities, establishments operating without sanctioned building plans, commercial establishments functioning without mandatory parking and to indicate whether any action had been taken against such entities by the Municipal Corporation.
The respondent complied and 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 with 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 address specifically the particulars furnished in the supplementary affidavit.
Bench’s Observations on Uniform Enforcement
A Bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal took note of the material placed before it. The Court observed that the issues highlighted in the petition 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 Bench noted 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. It referred to the supplementary affidavit which 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.
The Court emphasized 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.
Operative Order to the Jammu Municipal Corporation
In light of the foregoing observations the High Court directed the Jammu Municipal Corporation to undertake a comprehensive survey of all hotels, commercial establishments, coaching institutes and other public buildings within its jurisdiction. The survey is to identify violations relating to sanctioned building plans, mandatory parking facilities, fire safety clearances and other statutory requirements.
The Court made it clear that the direction is intended to ensure that municipal authorities apply the law even‑handedly and that no establishment is subjected to action while others with comparable violations are left unchecked.
Implications of the Order
The order underscores the judiciary’s role in monitoring the uniform application of municipal regulations. By directing a city‑wide survey the Court seeks to create a factual basis for assessing the extent of non‑compliance and to facilitate corrective action across the board.
The directive also reinforces the principle that selective enforcement undermines the rule of law and may constitute a violation of the equality guarantee under Article 14. Municipal bodies are now obliged to examine their enforcement practices and to take remedial steps where disparities are found.
The matter remains pending before the High Court for further directions based on the findings of the survey ordered by the Court.