PIL seeking closure of 59 unregistered dairies/establishment of gowshala

DB expresses anguish over non-filing of compliance report by JMC imposes Rs. 15,000 costs

10/11/2021

Jammu, Nov 9: A Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh comprising its Chief Justice, Pankaj Mithal and Justice Puneet Gupta while expressing its deep anguish/ displeasure over the non-filing of the compliance report by Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) in terms of order dated March, 18, 2021 read with order dated August, 18, 2021 whereby the Division bench had directed the counsel for JMC to seek instructions and to make a statement on the instructions from the JMC as to the time-frame within which unauthorized dairies shall be removed from the municipal limits and the proposed Gowshala (Cattle Pound) would be made operational after completing all necessary formalities. The DB had further directed that the counsel for JMC will also submit the complete blueprint in this regard. The similar directions were reiterated on August, 18, 2021 when the counsel for JMC sought adjournment and had been allowed further four weeks time to comply the order dated March, 18, 2021.
The Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal after hearing Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed with Advocates Supriya Chouhan, Mohd. Zulkarnain Chowdhary & Advocate Sayed Majid Shah appearing for the petitioner in the much publicized PIL filed by an NGO, SAVE (PIL No. 25/2017) through its Chairperson Devinder Kour Madaan alias Rumpy Madaan took serious note of non-filing of the compliance report as counsel for JMC further sought adjournment to enable him to report compliance of orders dated March, 18, 2021 and August 18, 2021.
Upon this, the Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal reluctantly granted 2 weeks time to Advocate Harsh-vardhan Gupta, appearing for JMC to file the response of the JMC subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- by JMC which has to be deposited in the registry of the High Court on or before the next date. The DB further directed that the response shall be filed on affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and none else and in case, such a response is not filed within the time provided, the Municipal Commissioner shall personally appear before the Court on the next date.
The DB further directed that any person who may have preferred a Writ Petition directly against the order of DFO may also approach the appellate authorities if he so feels and is advised and their appeals would be decided in accordance with law and the Writ petitions filed by such persons would stand disposed of in terms of this order.
While parting with the Order, the Division Bench further made it clear that the appellate authority would consider the limitation of filing the appeal from the date of this order in cases where the orders have been passed by the DFO earlier or alternatively, to condone the delay in filing such appeals by granting the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act as the persons aggrieved were availing the remedy before this Court pursuant to the direction as referred to above. It is further provided that in case the appeals are so filed within time as provided above, the interim order of status quo passed by this Court would continue to operate till the appeals so filed are finally decided by the appellate authority. Senior AAG S.S. Nanda appeared for Housing and Urban Development Depart-ment. Deputy Advocate General Ajaz Lone appeared for Forest Department.
Looking into the importance of the matter the Division Bench directed the registry to re-notify the instant PIL on November, 26, 2021.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty