Serial No. 13 Regular List IN HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C)No. 2705/2019 Mehraj ud Din Qureshi …Petitioner(s) Through: None Vs. State of JK and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy.AG, for 4 and 6 Mr. Wasim Gul, GA, for 1 to 3 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE. ORDER 22.05.2025 1. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the respondents that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and the respondents, in this regard, have filed a detailed affidavit on behalf of Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, in which, a specific stand has been taken in Paras-3 and 4. For facility of reference, same are reproduced as under:- “3. That after the receipt of the reports from the Joint Commissioner (Planning) and Chief Enforcement Officer, SMC the deponent took up the matter with the then Commissioner, SMC. telephonically through Chief Enforcement Officer, SMC. It was revealed that a city tour had been undertaken by the Mayor and the then Deputy Mayor along with the then Commissioner, SMC. and other Corporation officers. During the said visit it had been observed that the petitioner had opened an entry on the main road Baghi Ali Mardan Khan Botakadal, Srinagar, even though no such permission had been granted by the Municipal Corporation to the petitioner for opening of the said entry on the main road. It is submitted that the structure of the petitioner being situated in the Industrial Area had access for entry and exit from within the Industrial Estate itself and could not have opened an entry on the main road itself. It is in such circumstances that the said entry had been closed down by the then Commissioner, SMC on the on spot directions of the Mayor and then Deputy Mayor. It is apt to mention here that the structure had not been sealed and it was only the middle entry of the show room (Product Display Center) which had been closed, thus, effectively the structure of the petitioner was open for entry and exit from the other sides. 4. That the reports so furnished to the deponent also reveal that the middle entry of the petitioner’s unit was de-sealed after receipt of communication from the Managing Director SICOP by the then Joint Commissioner (Planning), SMC pursuant to the approval of the then Commissioner. 2. Thus, in the light of the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit, nothing remains to be adjudicated upon any further in the instant petition as the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. This may be the precise reason that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 4. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 22.05.2025 “Shamim Dar”