Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Oct 10: High Court dismissed the plea seeking raising of construction for establishment of cinema hall in the vicinity of Army Cantonment Board (CB) area of Srinagar, citing the building permission has lapsed as it was valid for two years only.
After perusal of the back ground of the case and the permission granted way back in 2018, the court of Justice Tashi Rabstan quoted that the permission was granted to petitioner-Vikas Dhar for raising construction of five storeyed commercial building in accordance with approved site and building plan specifically mentioning therein that the sanction will remain valid for two years from the date of its issuance.
Court referred the Section 234 of CB Act which stipulates that ‘no person shall erect or re-erect a building on any land in Cantonment except with the previous sanction of the Board’.
Permission was granted to petitioner-Dhar in the month of May 2018 with the condition if it was found that the construction is being raised in variation with approved site and building plans, the petitioner would be prosecuted under provisions of the law.
Petitioner maintained before the court that construction got delayed as he accepted the offer of Government to establish a Cinema theatre in the said building for that he approached the authorities with a representation for extension of building permission and started construction for theatre in November 2018 but due to unavoidable circumstances and lockdown imposed by the Government, there was delay in completion of construction.
Chief Executive Officer Cantonment Board Srinagar, while opposing to allow the petitioner to raise construction on site, informed the court that the petition is not maintainable as building permission granted in favour of the petitioner has lapsed and further more he did not intimate as to whether commencement of construction as is required under the Cantonment Board Act of 2006 and Rules framed thereunder.
The CB authorities further added that the petitioner had remedy available with appeal to redress his grievance before lower authorities instead of approaching High Court under the provision of Act of 2006 as such the petition be dismissed.
Court on available remedy to the petitioner to agitate his grievance said the object of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy to aggrieved parties and power has consequently been vested to High Courts to issue orders to any person or authority within the jurisdiction of the High Court.
“It is unadorned that if the procedure of a suit had also to be adhered to in the case of writ petitions, the entire purpose of having a quick and inexpensive remedy would be defeated”, Justice Tashi recorded
Court has also been informed that the petitioner-Dhar has concealed the fact before the court that the land in question with respect whereof permission had been granted, had already been subject matter of dispute before Financial Commissioner (Revenue), therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Court for all these reasons held the petition as devoid of any merit and dismissed the same with the observation that the petitioner has statutory remedy available under provisions of the Act of 2006.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel