news details |
|
|
| Master Plan violations: HC directs Govt to file report till Oct 31 | | | S Sabaqat
Srinagar, Oct 24: Jammu and Kashmir High Court today granted government one week's time till to inform it about the policy decision regarding the building and other constructions which have come up in Srinagar and elsewhere in violation of the Master Plan. The court directions came in wake of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) when a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey deferred the hearing till October 11 with the condition if the government failed to come up with decision, it will decide cases regarding the violations on merit. Later the matter was Monday (Oct 21), the Court decided to take up matter on Oct 24. Meantime Advocate General M I Qadri requested for two weeks time. However, the court turned down his request with the observation that the time sought by him was "too much". "The problem is so colossal that we cannot close our eyes. If the government does not interfere we are bound by law. We don't even mind if demolition is to be ordered," the bench observed, further adding, "officials who have allowed these violations tacitly will have to be dealt in accordance with the law." Expressing displeasure over the magnitude of violations, the court disapproved the functioning of Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) saying the government must act tough to the extent of suspending "defunct" the Corporation. Being 'Custodia Legis' the court has already barred other court or tribunal from entertaining any litigation belonging to the subject matter involved in the PIL. A number of persons whose buildings have been sealed have filed application for de-sealing through senior advocates Zaffar A Shah, Mian Qayoom, Manzoor Ahmad Dar and M Iqbal Dar. The court was hearing the PIL filed by advocate Mujeeb Andrabi which calls for special attention to Srinagar to make it model city keeping in view its historical importance as well as being the face of the Valley. Meanwhile giving a brief relied to respondents, the court fixed the next date of hearing on October 31. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
