Sr. No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1501/2025 CM(3848/2025) M/S NOORA PAYING GUEST HOUSE AND ANR. …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. M.A. Makhdoomi, Advocate, and Ms. Shaista, Advocate Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GULMARG DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG., with Ms. Shaila Shameem, Assisting Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 09-07-2025 Petitioners, being aggrieved against the order dated 04.06.2025, vide which the subject property was sealed, are before this Court. It would be apposite to point out that even earlier the petitioners had approached this Court vide WP(C) No. 1229/2015 wherein they had assailed the notice dated 17.05.2025 issued by the Gulmarg Development Authority (GDA) whereby, they were required to demolish the construction/structure that was alleged to have been illegally raised. In essence, the grievance of the petitioners was that notice dated 17.05.2025 was issued in apparent violation of the scheme of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, as they were not served with any show-cause notice to set out their defence/response. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents who had appeared before this Court, as always, fairly submitted that the impugned notice dated 17.05.2025 be considered as only a show-cause notice and the petitioners, in terms of Sub-Section 2 of Section 7, be granted opportunity to respond thereto. Whereafter, the competent authority, if so advised, would pass the appropriate orders. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that petitioner would submit a suitable reply/response to the show-cause notice within a prescribed time. And the matter was accordingly disposed of vide order dated 27.05.2025. Upon being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that despite opportunity, the petitioners owing to the circumstances beyond their act and control could not submit response/reply in terms of our order dated 27.05.2025. Meanwhile, the Gulmarg Development Authority (GDA) has passed sealing impugned order, referred to above, in terms of Section 8 of the Act on 04.06.2025. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they be granted yet another opportunity to submit reply in terms of Sub-Section 2 of Section 7 of the Act. In response, learned counsel for the respondents as always, fairly submits that even now if the petitioners submit a reply within a week from today, the same shall be taken into consideration and appropriate orders in terms of Section 7(3) shall be passed. As to this, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners would submit a reply on or before the time indicated by learned counsel for the respondents. However, it is urged that owing to the sealing order under challenge, the petitioners are faced with multiple difficulties, and the authorities be required to pass necessary orders within a specified time. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the orders under Section 7 (3) shall be passed within a period of 10 days from the receipt of the reply from the petitioners to the show-cause notice dated 17.05.2025. However, with reference to the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by learned Munsiff, Tangmarg, in a suit filed by the petitioners against Divisional Forest Officer and another, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Trial Court, much before the Gulmarg Development Authority was arrayed as defendant, had passed an order on 29.08.2023 vide which the defendants were injuncted from causing any sort of interference with the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs with respect to the suit land. And post Gulmarg Development Authority was arrayed as defendant, the restraint order has also been extended against the said authority on 29.08.2023. Therefore, he submits that albeit de-horse the order dated 29.08.2023, the GDA is under statutory obligations, in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act to pass appropriate orders, but still to avert any possible complications, it be clarified that notwithstanding the said order, the competent authority shall be at liberty to pass necessary orders under Section 7(3) of the Act. The position indicated above is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners, who is agreeable to the course suggested by learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, he submits that let the petition, for the present, be disposed of in terms of arrangement indicated above. In wake of the above position, and in terms of the statement made, the petition is accordingly disposed of. This Court is sanguine that in the event any such response as indicated earlier, is submitted by the petitioners to the show-cause notice dated 17.05.2025 per the time indicated above, the competent authority shall consider the matter in the right earnest and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 09-07-2025 Aadil