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.