Court hears arguments on petition filed by the Jahangir Hotel owner against IG traffic, SMC officials

Court hears arguments on petition filed by the Jahangir Hotel owner against IG traffic, SMC officials
  • 7

SRINAGAR: A local court on Saturday heard the arguments on the petition filed by the owner of the Jahangir Hotel against inspector general of police traffic Basant Rath and SMC officials after authorities dismantled the canopy of the hotel at the main entrance of the property.
The petition is pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar. The petitioner has submitted video recording pertaining to the occurrence and all relevant documents have been filed to demonstrate his claim that officials are guilty of panel acts.
The owner of the Jahangir Hotel, Shabir Ahmad Rangrez, through his counsel has pleaded for initiation of contempt proceedings against the IGP traffic, SMC commissioner, SHO Shaheed Gunj and others.
He pleaded that by virtue of the court order issued earlier in the suit, the authorities were directed not to damage the property of the plaintiff.
The court heard the prosecution and the counsel for the petitioner at length and elevated all the pros and cons of the matter in detail asked for submission of ancillary evidence.
Counsel for the petitioner sort intervention of the court and added that the contemnors (IGP traffic and others) are guilty of showing disrespect to the command issued by the court which amounts to gross abuse of process of law on their part aimed at depriving the petitioner of the protection which is available to them in terms of law whereas prosecution lawyers defend the non-applicants act.
The prime argument of the counsel for the petitioner was that the property in question has validly existed at the site having permission from SMC authorities and situated in the preparatory land.
Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Ishtiyaq Ahmad Khan told Kashmir Reader that “The officials without any lawful authority have done demolition which has caused great and excitable loss to the petitioner and his reputation in the society”.
The case has been listed for furthers orders on 30 May.