Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 365 (JK)

Residents of Abu Bakr Siddique Enclave v. State

2017-07-18

B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the Poultry Farm being constructed in residential area despite representation (Annexure-B) dated 10.07.2017. 2. Learned counsel states that the petitioner would be satisfied if the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation (Annexure-B) dated 10.07.2017 in accordance with law and to take such action in respect thereto as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Notice to respondent No.2 only. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the Jammu Development Authority, accepts notice and states that although he has no objection to the limited prayer of the petitioner, yet the writ petition is not maintainable against respondent No.2 in the absence of Jammu Development Authority having been impleaded as party respondent. 4. Faced with the aforementioned situation, learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral prayer for permission to amend the cause title of the writ petition so as to implead Jammu Development Authority, Jammu as respondent No.2 through its Vice Chairman. 5. Prayer is accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make table amendment in presence of the Reader of this Court. In the light of the position as noted above, statement of learned counsel for the parties is taken on record. Writ petition is taken on board and is disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation (Annexure-B) dated 10.07.2017 in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable and the provisions of the Master Plan and to take such action in respect thereto, as may be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. If on decision of the representation, it is found that there is any violation of the provisions of the Master Plan etc., action as warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case be taken after compliance with the principles of natural justice. Needless to mention, it would be open to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court if the circumstances of the case so warrant after the decision of the representation. With the aforementioned directions, writ petition alongwith MPs stands disposed of.