Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd vs Jammu Municipal Corporation And Anr on 5 March, 2025
S.No. 98
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. :- WP(C) No. 554/2025
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Akash Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Manik Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Vs
Jammu Municipal Corporation and Anr. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
05.03.2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the record.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate waives notice on behalf of
respondents.
4. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner
has called-in-question the Order No. JMC/Enf/5696-5700 dated
03.03.2025 issued by the respondent No. 1, by virtue of which, the
structure/building, which is being occupied by the petitioner-Jammu
& Kashmir Bank has been sealed under Jammu & Kashmir, Municipal
Corporation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the, “Act of 2000”) on
the ground that the Bank has not stopped the commercial activities
after receiving notice under Section 253(1) of the Municipal Act, 2000
read with Jammu & Kashmir Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2021 and the
structure/building in question has been put under Superdari with the
SHO Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
5. The instant petition has been preferred on behalf of the
Jammu and Kashmir Bank, who is occupying the said premises on the
basis of the Lease Deed executed by Mr. Bagwan Singh (the lessor) in
favour of the Bank way back of 15.12.2010.
2
6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there is no
commercial activity carried out by the petitioner-Bank and no illegal
construction, as alleged in the order impugned is being raised by the
petitioner.
7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner-Bank is running in
the said building premises for the last more than 15 years and
according to Mr. Bhardwaj, running of a Bank in a residential area is
not a commercial activity, as alleged in the impugned order.
8. The further case of the petitioner is that it has come to the
knowledge of the Bank that the owner of the building has also
preferred an appeal against the order of demolition under Section
253(1) of the Municipal Act, 2000 dated 24.01.2025 issued to him qua
the same building premises, which appeal was dismissed by the
learned Special Tribunal vide order dated 31.01.2025, directing the
respondent No. 1 to take effective steps under law within reasonable
period of time and also to stop forthwith any illegal commercial activity
within the premises.
9. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits
that against the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned
Tribunal, the owner of the property has preferred a writ petition
bearing WP(C) No. 276/2025 before this Court and a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide interim order dated 07.02.2025 has modified
the order of the learned Tribunal to the extent that the respondents
shall not cause any demolition to the structure and the owner of the
property, at the same time, shall comply with the interim order dated
29.09.2011 passed in OWP No. 1374/2011 in case titled, “JMC Vs.
Bhagwan Singh Choudhary and ors.”
10. It is a specific case of the petitioner that no illegal
construction or commercial activity is being carried by the Bank except
running the Bank since 2010.
11. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court to a clarification issued by the Joint
Commissioner, Planning dated 08.11.2024, a perusal whereof reveals
that the Banking Operations restricted to Bank Branches and ATMs
3
can be considered under Public Utility and Services and the same can
be operated from residential area/residential premises as per the
Master Plan-2035 and Jammu & Kashmir Unified Building Byelaws-
2021, subject to proper permission from Building Permission Issuing
Authority (BPIA), as designated under rules. However, the said
clarification has been issued from the office of Joint Commissioner
(Planning), Srinagar Municipal Corporation and, as per learned
counsel for the respondents, the same pertains to Srinagar Wing and
not to Jammu Division.
12. In light of the aforesaid clarification, learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner intends to seek permission from the designated
authority although the said clarification pertains to Srinagar Wing, but
on the same lines, the Municipal Authorities are under an obligation to
accord consideration to the same.
13. Accordingly, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner would feel satisfied in case, respondents
are directed to accord consideration to the representation of the
petitioner-Bank, which will be filed within two days from today before
the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu, who shall decide
the same within ten days thereafter strictly in light of the clarification,
which has been issued by the Joint Commissioner (Planning) dated
08.11.2024.
14. Mr. Bhardwaj further submits that although, the said
clarification has been issued by the Joint Commissioner, Srinagar
Municipal Corporation, keeping in view the Master Plan, 2035
pertaining to the Srinagar Wing, but the respondents cannot apply two
different yardsticks insofar as Master Plan of Jammu Division is
concerned and the same principle will be applicable insofar as Master
Plan of Jammu Division is concerned.
15. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal
Corporation, Jammu is directed to accord consideration to the
representation, which will be filed by the petitioner-Bank on or before
08.03.2025 and the same shall be accorded due consideration within
the aforesaid period strictly in light of the aforesaid clarification within
4
a period of ten days thereafter.
16. List again on 18.03.2025.
17. In the meantime, keeping in view that the public interest is
involved and the Bank is running its affairs in the premises in
question, this Court deems it proper to direct the respondent-
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu to allow the Bank to
function in the premises situate at 4-D Shastri Nagar, Jammu till the
said representation is accorded consideration by the said authority to
avoid inconvenience to public at large and also keeping in view the fact
that the functioning of the Bank is not hampered. It is made clear that
this interim protection is only till the said representation is accorded
consideration by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation within the
aforesaid period. However, continuance of the interim protection will
be subject to further orders from this Court after perusing the order of
consideration, which is likely to be passed by the respondent-
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu.
18. It is further made clear that that in case, the petitioner fails
to file the representation before the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal
Corporation, Jammu, then the respondents would be at liberty to
proceed in accordance with law.
19. Copies of this order be provided to learned counsel for the
parties under the seal and signatures of the Bench Secretary of this
Court.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
JAMMU
05.03.2025
Ram Krishan
Ram Krishan
2025.03.06 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link