There being no sanction authorising construction beyond first floor, it became imperative to examine the record as to how authorities have allowed such construction to commence and continue in absence of permission, accordingly, on 3/10/2002 the respondents were directed to produce the record but despite lapse of more than a half a year record was not produced. To compel obedience of the direction following order was passed on 29/06/2003.

"Respondents have failed to produce the record for last months together. How long they expect the court to wait. Be it placed on record that if record is not produced on the next date, the respondents other than respondent 5 shall appear in person to explain the cause of inability. Appropriate orders shall be passed thereafter. Be listed on 12/6/2003."

2. Apprehending likelihood of employment of coercive mode, the Respondent-Municipality gave up the resistence and produced the relevant record on 12/6/2003 just one day before summer vacation. Apparent disinclination in production of record depicts an unsavoury approach which is detrimental to the public interests. Why such reluctance and who is responsible for it and how such erring officer/official should be dealt with, I leave this area untouched to be embarked upon by the respondents at their own level.

3. To put the record straight, it needs to be mentioned that when these three inter-connected clubbed writ petitions came up for consideration a statement was made by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents are contemplating settlement of the controversy outside the court, on such statement he sought withdrawal of the writ petitions with liberty to file fresh in case respondents back out. Learned counsel for the Municipality controverting the statement submitted that assurance was never given to the petitioner and statement is aimed at the involvement of the Municipality in yet another phase of litigation with a sole purpose to escape the fall out of violation of the statute. In nutshell the Municipality is averse to the conditional withdrawal of writ petitions. That apart there is an impediment in granting the prayer of withdrawal which is traceable to the ad interim relief dated 16/7/1996. This ad interim order entitles the petitioner to raise construction as per the sanctioned plan but the subsequent ad interim order dated 11/08/1996 passed in OWP 337/96 envisages stand-still. It is a situation where court is required to make clarification as to what is the consequence of these two directions lest it works as an obstacle for the authorities concerned in discharge of their statutory obligations. In this view of the matter, prayer for withdrawal of writ petitions cannot be conceded to and I proceed to decide the writ petitions on their merits.

4. It is urged in OWP 230/96 that petitions had come in possession of two-kanals and 17 marlas of land on lease and had raised the construction upon it in the year 1967 which gutted in fire giving rise to the need of reconstruction and there being permission from the Divisional Town Plannner bearing No. 08 of 1996 dated 27/04/1996 forming annexure p4 to the writ petition respondents are sought to be prohibited from causing any interference in the construction. In quick succession another writ petition bearing No. OWP 337/96 was filed on 31/07/1996 questioning the show cause notice issued under the J&K State Town Planning Act 1963 (Act for short), followed by writ petition OWP 693/97 filed on 05/05/1997 seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from demolishing five storeyed building consisting of four storeys and an attic situated at Kothi Bagh Srinagar comprising survey Nos. 501/169 and 507/170. The facts given in OWP 230/96 which is prior in time are reiterated in other two writ petitions and excepting the relief clause there appears no difference in the averments made in all the three petitions, therefore, reiteration of facts is uncalled for and I skip over.

5. The petitioner h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document