JUDGMENT :

Oswal, J.

1. The Appellants are aggrieved of Order dated 8th of July, 2022 passed by the learned Writ Court in WP (C) No. 1457/2022, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants challenging the Order dated 18th of June, 2022; re-sealing the premises of the Appellants situated at Suthra Shahi, Srinagar; has been dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious statutory remedy under the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 (for short “the Act of 2000”).

2. Mr R. A. Jan, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Appellants, vehemently argued that Section 253 of the Act of 2000 was not applicable in the case of the Appellants as the Appellants were not erecting any work within the meaning of Section 253 of the Act of 2000, rather the Respondents had proceeded against the Appellants under Section 258 of the Act of 2000 read with Byelaws 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (Building) Byelaws, 2011; and Byelaw 2.12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Unified Building Byelaws, 2021. It is contended that, although the aforesaid issue was argued before the learned Writ Court, but same was not appreciated, thereby rendering the impugned Order unsustainable in the eyes of law.

3. Mr Moomin Khan, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, submitted that since the Appellants violated the provisions of the Act of 2000 by changing the user of the premises in question from residential into commercial, therefore, appropriate action under Section 253 of the Act of 2000 was taken against the Appellants.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. The Appellants, being aggrieved of Order dated 18th of June, 2022; re-sealing the premises of the Appellants situated at Suthra Shahi Srinagar, challenged the same before the Writ Court and the Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition in terms of impugned Order dated 8th of July, 2022. Perusal of the aforesaid Order passed by the learned Writ Court reveals that the Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that the Appellants have an efficacious statutory remedy available under the Act of 2000. The contention of the Appellants is that since the Appellants were not erecting/ raising any building in terms of the Act of 2000, so the Respondents could not have resorted to the provisions contained in Section 253 of the Act of 2000, while passing the re-sealing Order. In order to appreciate the contention so raised by the Appellants, it is necessary to reproduce Section 253 as well as Section 258 of the Act of 2000, which read thus:

“253. Order of demolition and stoppage of building and works in certain cases and appeal:

‘(1) Where the erection of any work has been commenced, or is being carried on or has been completed without or contrary to the sanction referred to in section 246 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such sanction has been accorded or in contravention of the provisions of this Act or bye-laws made thereunder, the Commissioner may in addition to any other action that may be taken under this Act, make an order directing that such erection or work shall be demolished by the person at whose instance the erection or work has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed within such period (not being less than seven days from the date on which a copy of the order of demolition with a brief statement of the reasons therefore has been delivered to that person) as may be specified in the order of demolition:

Provided that no order of demotion shall be made unless the person has been given, by means of a notice served in such manner as the Commissioner may think fit, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be made:

Provided further that where the erection nor work has not been completed, the Commissioner may be the same order or by a separate order, whether made at the time of the issue of the notice under the first proviso or at any other time, direct the person to stop the erection or work until the expiry o