HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 692/2024 Dhruv Mahajan & Ors. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rishav Vaid, Advocate vice Mr. Y.E Tak, Advocate vs UT of J&K & Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, Advocate for R-1 Ms. Manisha Mottan, Advocate vice Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate for R-2 Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER (28.01.2026) 1. The petitioners, alleging municipal/statutory violations by respondent No. 3, through the medium of the present petition, have prayed for following reliefs:- a) Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order including in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to raise any sort of Commercial Construction on Plot N. 212, Sector No. 7, Channi Himmat, Housing Colony, Jammu and also not change the nature of the land from residential to commercial of the said plot in any manner whatsoever. b) Directing and commanding the respondents to perform their statutory duties and take action as warranted under law, BOCA Laws, Municipal Corporation Laws, Parking Policy, traffic laws etc. Against the respondent No. 3 for raising commercial construction in a residential area in vicinity of petitioners and creating a Serial No. 29 2 WP(C) No. 692/2024 traffic and other nuisance for the petitioners, their families and other residents of the area. 2. Objections have been filed by respondent No. 2 stating therein that notice under Section 253 (1) of the J&K Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 had been issued to the private respondent for raising construction of a building in contravention of the approved building plan sanctioned vide No. 1369/JMC/BS/2023-224 dated 02.11.2023. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the demolition notice had been issued by the Municipal Corporation to the sister of respondent No. 3 with regard to the structure in question which has been assailed before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu and the matter is subjudice before the Tribunal. His statement is taken on record. . 4. In view of the objections filed by the respondent-Jammu Municipal Corporation and the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and does not call for any further proceedings as such, the petition is disposed of having been rendered infructuous. 5. The petitioners, however, shall have recourse to available legal remedy. (M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE Jammu 28.01.2026 Tarun/PS Tarun Kumar Gupta 2026.01.28 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document