JUDGMENT : WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J. Brief Facts: 1. The instant petition has been preferred by the Joint Commissioner Municipal Corporation Jammu, wherein the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court and seeking quashment/setting aside of the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Learned J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, in file No. STJ/59/2022 by virtue of which, as per the petitioner, the mandatory provisions have been ignored and the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. 2. Till date, no notice has been issued in the instant case and on the other hand this court vide order dated 12.07.2023 has directed the Commissioner Jammu Municipal Corporation, to show the authority delegated by the Building Operation Controlling Authority, Municipal Area, Jammu, in his favour for the purpose of challenging the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu. This Court vide order dated 12.07.2023 has been pleased to observe as under: “5. Now, whether as a Chairman of the Building Operation Controlling Authority, Municipal Area, Jammu, the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation at his own discretion can choose to decide to assail an adjudication of an appeal under section 7 of the Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 without having the decision of the Building Operation Controlling Authority, Municipal Area, Jammu at the first instance whereby upon examination of the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu decision to assail the said judgment is taken for enabling one of its members be that its Chairman or someone else to proceed and file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. “6. In terms of section 16 of the Control of Building Operation Act, 1988, a given Building Operation Controlling Authority is vested with the power to delegate its power exercisable by it in favour of such officer or local authority as may get mentioned in the notification/ delegating the power. 7. “6. In terms of section 16 of the Control of Building Operation Act, 1988, a given Building Operation Controlling Authority is vested with the power to delegate its power exercisable by it in favour of such officer or local authority as may get mentioned in the notification/ delegating the power. 7. In this case, there is no single line averment in the writ petition that how the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation has enabled himself to act on behalf of the Building Operation Controlling Authority, Municipal Area, Jammu for the purpose of assailing the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir, Special Tribunal through the medium of the present writ petition and, as such this Court is directing the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation to show the source of his authority in the matter of coming up with the decision to assail the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal. Para-1 of the writ petition does not suffice the purpose as the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation by reference to this status as Chairman of Building Operation Controlling Authority, Municipal Area, Jammu, is coming forward to represent to act in the name of Building Operation Controlling Authority, Municipal Area, Jammu to file the writ petition. 8. This averment does not meet the requirement of law and as such, let the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation show the authority delegated by the Building Operation Controlling Authority, Municipal Area, Jammu in his favour for the purpose of challenging the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu.” 3. In pursuance to the order passed by this court dated 12.07.2023, the instant petition has been taken with regard to the maintainability. Before adverting to the issue with respect to the maintainability, it would be apt to give a brief factual background of the case which would facilitate this court to decide the issue in question: (i) Respondent No. 1 held a plot of land measuring 2601 sq ft situated at Nanak Nagar, Jammu wherein he had started the construction work of 2nd floor without seeking proper permission of Jammu Municipal Corporation. (ii) Since the respondent No. 1 had started raising the unauthorized construction in contravention of the approved plan and against the Master Plan, a show cause notice under section 7(1) and final notice under the provisions of section 7(3) of the Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 were issued to him by Building Operation Controlling Authority. (iii) Feeling aggrieved of the same Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the aforesaid final notice before the learned Tribunal on 07.03.2022. (iv) That the Learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 25.05.2023. Legal Analysis: 4. From the perusal of the order passed by the Learned Tribunal dated 25.05.2023 in an appeal, it is apparently clear that once the petitioner herein are parties to the lis before the Tribunal and pursuant to the notice issued by the learned Special Tribunal, Jammu, petitioners herein caused their appearance to defend the statutory notices, thus they fall within the category of “Aggrieved” persons, being: (a) party to the lis. (b) the lis has been decided against them. 5. With a view to decide the maintainability in the instant petition, it would be apt to reproduce the following relevant provisions of The Jammu & Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988: “14. Bar of Jurisdiction No court shall have jurisdiction to: (a) make any interim order whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner against the order of the Authority concerned or the appellate officer. (b) entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of demolition of any building. 15. Finality of orders Save as otherwise provided in this Act every order made by an Authority or the appellate officer shall be final and shall not be called in question in any suit, application or execution proceedings. 16. Delegation The Authority may, by notification in the Government Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act except the power to make regulations, if any, as may be specified in the notification, by such officer or local authority as may be mentioned therein. 17. Protection of action taken in good faith. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or the regulations made there under. 18. 17. Protection of action taken in good faith. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or the regulations made there under. 18. Effect of provisions of the Act inconsistent with other laws The provisions of this Act shall apply to the erection or re-erection of buildings alongside public roads regulated under the Prevention of Ribbon Development Act, Samvat 2007. 19. Power to make regulations (1) The Authority, with the previous approval of the government may, by notification in the Government Gazette, make regulations to carry out the purposes of this Act. Provided that the government may make the first regulations under this section and any regulation so made may be altered or rescinded by the Authority concerned in exercise of the powers conferred by this section. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following mates, namely: (a) the summoning and holding of meeting of the Authority, the time and place where such meetings are to be held, the procedure to be followed by the Authority and the number of members necessary to form a quorum. (b) the manner of authentication of orders and other instruments of the Authority. (c) the form in which an application under sub-section (1) of section 5 shall be made and the information to be furnished in such application. (d) the regulation of the laying out of means of access to road; (e) the principles under which applications for permission under this Act may be granted. (f) the officers or local authorities to whom powers may be delegated under section 16. (g) any other matter which has to be, or may be, prescribed.” 6. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions/regulations, it is apparently clear that the only powers required to be delegated are explained in regulation 9 of J&K Control of Building Operations Regulations 1998. Regulations 9 & 10 of J&K Control of Building Operations Regulations, 1998 are reproduced as under: 9. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions/regulations, it is apparently clear that the only powers required to be delegated are explained in regulation 9 of J&K Control of Building Operations Regulations 1998. Regulations 9 & 10 of J&K Control of Building Operations Regulations, 1998 are reproduced as under: 9. Delegation - The Authority may delegate all or any of the following powers to either the Chairman or such of the officers of the Municipality, Town Area Committee, Notified Area Committee or Development Authority, as the case may be, as are entrusted with the responsibility of demolition/removal of unauthorised constructions: (i) powers under section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act to issue notice to show cause why a building should not be altered or demolished. (ii) powers under section 7(3) of the Act to pass an order directing a person to demolish, alter or pull down a building or part thereof. (iii) powers under section 8(1) of the Act to pass an order directing the sealing or removal of the sealing of unauthorised construction. (iv) powers under section 12 of the Act to issue notice to stop building operation and removal of persons thereof. 10. Appeals - (1) An appeal against the order of the Authority made under section 5 and 7 of the Act shall lie before the Chairman of the J&K Special Tribunal or such other Member of the said Tribunal as may be decided by the same Chairman. 7. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid regulation, it is apparently clear that the authority may delegate all or any of the powers envisaged under the aforesaid regulations either to the Chairman Municipal Corporation or such officers of the Municipality, Notified Area Committee or Development Authority or as the case may be, as are entrusted with the responsibility of demolition/removal of unauthorized constructions. Thus the power to delegate the authority flows from Regulation 9 of the J&K Control of Building Operations Regulation 1988 which have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under section 19 of the J&K Control of Building Operations Regulation 1988. Thus the power to delegate the authority flows from Regulation 9 of the J&K Control of Building Operations Regulation 1988 which have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under section 19 of the J&K Control of Building Operations Regulation 1988. Besides, section 16 of the J&K Control of Building Operations Regulation 1988 grants power to the authority by notification in the Government Gazette, by directing that any power exercisable by it under the Act, except the power to make regulations, be exercised in such cases and subject to such condition which are specified in the notification. 8. Mr. Rajnish Raina, learned counsel submits that the remedy of statutory appeal has already been provided under regulation 10 of the Control of Building Operations Regulations, to the person against the statutory notices. With a view to clarify this legal aspect, learned counsel Mr. Rajnish Raina submits that once the appeal is adjudicated by passing a final order then there is no further remedy for the aggrieved persons (parties to lis) as apparent from section 15 of the Act. Thus the only remedy will be available to the aggrieved persons/parties to lis is by way of filing writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution to question to legality of the order passed by the Tribunal (appellate authority). 9. In so far as the locus of the Chairman Building Operations Controlling Authority i.e. Commissioner Jammu Municipal Corporation, is concerned he falls within the ambit of a person aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in the instant petition being a necessary party before the Tribunal. From the bare perusal of the record, it is apparent that the said lis was decided vide order dated 25.5.2023 which is impugned in the present petition and thus has a right to challenge the same. Since the issue of locus was not raised before the Tribunal by either of the parties and the appeal was preferred by the Respondent No. 1 against the Chairman, Building Operations Controlling Authority and other respondents. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the said respondents who were parties before the Learned Tribunal. Since the issue of locus was not raised before the Tribunal by either of the parties and the appeal was preferred by the Respondent No. 1 against the Chairman, Building Operations Controlling Authority and other respondents. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the said respondents who were parties before the Learned Tribunal. Thus, the Commissioner Jammu Municipal Corporation is competent to assail the judgment of the Tribunal through the medium of the instant writ petition being a necessary party before the Tribunal and fall within the ambit of aggrieved person. I draw support of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Bhatinda vs. Land Acquisition Collector, 1993 (3) SCC 24 , in which it has been held as under: “............it cannot be said that the appellant was not a person aggrieved by the order dated December 20, 1983 passed by the Addl. Dy. Commissioner holding that the proceedings for the acquisition of the land in question for the construction of public park at Bhatinda by the appellant be deemed to have lapsed. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding that the appellant had no locus standi to file the writ petition seeking to challenge the said order of the Addl. Dy. Commissioner.” 10. The concept of locus standi has undergone sea changes over the years. The person whose statutory right is likely to be adversely affected by the impugned action, has the locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Since the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation was necessary party before the Tribunal and through medium of the instant petition has pleaded that the Tribunal has exceeded his jurisdiction contrary to the mandate of law and thus falls within the ambit of person aggrieved and has locus standi to challenge the order of the Tribunal. 11. The nature and extent of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to exercise the power of judicial review is an integral and essential feature of the constitution and is basic structure of our constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is original, extraordinary and discretionary. The duties cast upon the High Court is to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any decision of a constitutional authority, a statutory authority, a tribunal or an authority within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is original, extraordinary and discretionary. The duties cast upon the High Court is to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any decision of a constitutional authority, a statutory authority, a tribunal or an authority within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The judicial review is designed to prevent cases of abuse of power or neglect of a duty by the public authority, to discharge the public functions entrusted on them. The courts being the guardian of the rights and liberties of the citizens shall fail in their responsibility if they abdicate their solemn duty towards the citizens. The scope of Article 226 is very wide and can be used to remedy injustice wherever it is found. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the jurisdiction under Article 226 confers the High Court the power to examine the decision of the Tribunal to see whether the Tribunal has acted illegally or not and thus, this Court while deciding the question of maintainability at this stage will refrain from commenting the merits of the case. 12. Thus at this stage, I have no hesitation in holding that in light of the aforesaid discussion, the Commissioner Jammu Municipal Corporation being the necessary party falling in the ambit of aggrieved person has locus to file the instant writ petition challenging the judgment dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Tribunal. Since he was already party before the Tribunal and this issue was never raised or objected by any of the parties and it is presumed that the Commissioner has locus to challenge the same. Thus the issue which has been raised by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2023 is decided accordingly in the manner indicated above. 13. Registry to list the main case on 06.09.2023 for further consideration.