Municipal authorities must ensure uniform and non-discriminatory enforcement of building bye-laws and statutory regulations to avoid violating the constitutional mandate of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER

(02.07.2026)

01. The present writ petition has a chequered history spanning over more than three decades. The controversy traces its origin to proceedings initiated by the Municipal authorities in relation to the hotel premises of respondent No.1, culminating in the order dated 18.06.2001 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition, which has remained pending before this Court for a considerable period of time.

02. During the course of hearing of the present petition, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 consistently maintained that respondent No.1 had been subjected to a discriminatory exercise of statutory powers by the Municipal authorities. It was urged that while proceedings had been initiated against the establishment of respondent No.1, several similarly situated hotels, banquet halls, coaching centres and other commercial establishments, allegedly suffering from identical or even more serious deficiencies relating to sanctioned building plans, parking facilities and other statutory compliances, continued to operate without any meaningful action having been taken against them.

03. In order to substantiate the aforesaid plea, respondent No.1 placed reliance upon information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which, according to respondent No.1, disclosed that a large number of hotels, banquet halls, tuition/coaching centres and other commercial establishments within the municipal limits of Jammu were functioning without sanctioned building plans and/or the mandatory parking facilities prescribed under the applicable Building Bye-laws and statutory regulations. It was further contended that despite such violations, no effective action had been initiated against many of those establishments by the Municipal authorities.

04. The principal grievance projected on behalf of respondent No.1 was that the Municipal authorities had adopted a pick-and-choose policy in the enforcement of the municipal laws by proceeding against respondent No.1 while permitting several similarly situated establishments, allegedly guilty of identical or even more serious violations, to continue to operate without any effective action being taken against them. According to respondent No.1, such selective enforcement not only defeats the very object of the municipal laws but also falls foul of the constitutional mandate of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

05. Having regard to the aforesaid contention, this Court considered it appropriate to ascertain whether the allegation of selective enforcement and discriminatory exercise of statutory powers was borne out from the official record. It is in this backdrop that the present proceedings have been taken up to examine the material placed before this Court and the compliance of the directions subsequently issued by this Court for obtaining complete particulars regarding such similarly situated establishments.

06. Mr. Rahul Pant, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, has drawn the attention of this Court to the detailed order dated 21.08.2023, whereby respondent No.1 was directed to file a detailed supplementary affidavit highlighting:

i) The details of all such hotels which do not have parking space;

ii) The details of such hotels which do not have sanction