Srinagar, Oct 07: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Friday directed the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Sonamarg Development Authority (SDA) to appear in person before it and explain the development work he intends to carry out at Sonamarg.
A division bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi directed CEO, SDA to explain how he is planning to preserve the meadows and glacier.
The court was hearing a suo-moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking preservation and conservation of Sonmarg tourist resort.
Meanwhile, in pursuance of previous directions, an affidavit was filed by CEO, SDA before the court placing on record the master plan for the year 2005 to 2015.
It stated that the master plan for the year 2025 to 2040 is under process of being framed by the Chief Town Planner.
In a previous hearing, the bench had directed the CEO to place on record the Master Plan of the Sonamarg and a vision plan for Sonamarg along with the affidavit indicating the development work so far done by the authority.
The court had directed the CEO SDA to explore the possibility of using wooden fences, hedges and plantation of trees which are all environmental friendly to demarcate the various meadows and the boundaries of the various properties instead of using steel and iron barricades or fencing.
Regarding an application seeking permission for construction of an indoor swimming pool, gymnasium and Spa in the Hotel Snowland at Sonamarg, the court granted two weeks further time to government authorities to inform the court the exact position of the application of the applicant.
The court directed the government advocate to get the necessary instructions in the matter and file a fresh affidavit.
The application filed by Farooq Ahmad Hafiz, stated that the matter was considered by the SDA and placed before the Chairman, Building Operations Controlling Authority (BOCA).
It stated that till date there appears to be no final order either allowing or rejecting building permission to the said applicant.
The counsel representing the applicant had submitted that in view of Regulation 5 of the BOCA read with Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2001, the permission is deemed to have been granted but even then the petitioner is not being allowed to undertake the necessary construction work.
