CS asked to constitute inquiry committee in 2 weeks
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Mar 5: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has come down heavily on the Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) for disregarding binding court directions in a case relating to shops at Exchange Road, Jammu observing that the Municipal Commissioner acted in flagrant violation of judicial orders and attempted to reopen an issue already settled by the technically detailed inquiry conducted under judicial supervision.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
The High court also directed the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory to constitute an independent inquiry committee to examine the circumstances under which the building housing the shops was initially declared unsafe and to fix responsibility if any collusion, undue influence or procedural violation is found.
These observations and directions were made by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while delivering a judgment in a case filed by the tenants operating shops at 70, Exchange Road, Jammu.
The controversy began when the building owners submitted an application dated 29.08.2024 before JMC seeking declaration of the building as unsafe. According to the petitioners, the move was made with mala fide intention to forcibly evict them.
On the directions of JMC, the Public Works Department (PWD) issued a communication dated 13.11.2024 declaring the building unsafe. Relying on the report, JMC issued a notice dated 07.01.2025 under Section 258(2) of the JMC Act, directing demolition or repair of the building within 30 days.
The shopkeepers challenged the notice in WP(C) No. 299/2025 alleging violation of natural justice, absence of scientific inspection and alleged congeniality between private owners and Municipal authorities.
The High Court directed the engineering wing of PWD to constitute an expert committee afresh and conduct on-spot inspection of the building and shops separately. The inspection was ordered in presence of owners, tenants and officials under the supervision of the Additional District Magistrate and strictly as per the Municipal Corporation Act and Rules.
The committee conducted inspection and submitted a detailed report on 26.05.2025 mentioning that shops occupied by petitioners were structurally safe and fit for public use and one shop required minor repairs, including replacement of a wooden plank roof with an RCC slab. The report was later endorsed by the Additional District Magistrate.
In the earlier round of litigation, the High Court quashed the demolition notice dated 07.01.2025 and directed JMC Commissioner to reconsider the matter strictly in light of the PWD report dated 26.05.2025 and take a reasoned decision within two weeks after hearing all stakeholders.
Instead of deciding the matter as directed by the court, the Municipal Commissioner issued Order No. 41/2025 dated 26.07.2025 directing a private empanelled firm to conduct another safety audit of the building. The petitioners alleged the order was evasive, non-speaking and nullifying the binding directions of the court.
While deciding the petition filed by the shopkeepers, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal quashed JMC Order No. 41 of 2025 dated July 26, 2025 and held that the Commissioner had brushed aside the report of the committee of engineers constituted pursuant to the orders of the court and attempted to reopen an issue that had already stood concluded.
“Once a competent engineering committee had been constituted in compliance with the court’s earlier directions and had submitted a detailed report declaring the shops safe, the Commissioner was legally bound to act in furtherance of that report. Instead, the Commissioner ordered a fresh safety audit by a private empanelled firm, which amounted to reopening an issue that had already been concluded through a judicially mandated process”, Justice Nargal said.
The High Court emphasized that when a court directs reconsideration strictly in light of a specified report, the authority cannot bypass that mandate. “The authority is bound to act within the contours of the directions issued and cannot reopen or re-agitate the foundational issue”, the High Court added.
The High Court stressed that determining whether a building is structurally safe falls exclusively within the domain of technical experts, not administrative authorities. “Courts of law do not possess the technical expertise to independently assess structural safety. Once an expert engineering authority submits its report after technical evaluation, there remains no justification for administrative authorities to doubt it unless it is shown to be perverse or mala fide”, the High Court added.
The High Court also held that directing another safety audit without reasons amounted to arbitrary decision-making and an abdication of administrative responsibility. The judgment recorded that the petitioners had endured severe prejudice, financial loss and interruption of livelihood for nearly two years due to an official report which was later found to be factually incorrect after a detailed inquiry conducted under judicial supervision.
“It pains this court to note how these poor shopkeepers would have survived during the intervening period when the shops in question were their sole source of livelihood,” the High Court observed, adding “the record prima facie suggests that the initial unsafe report may have been obtained with an oblique intention to remove tenants without following lawful eviction procedures”.
The High Court further observed that circumstances indicated the unsafe report may have been engineered at the instance or under the influence of the landlord to oust lawful tenants by bypassing the legally prescribed civil process for eviction. It cautioned that the process of declaring a building unsafe cannot be misused as a tool to dispossess tenants.
“What cannot be achieved directly through legal means cannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly by invoking safety concerns contrary to an authoritative technical report,” the High Court said.
To ensure transparency, accountability and to prevent any misuse of official process, the High Court ordered that Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, shall constitute an independent inquiry committee within a period of two weeks, who shall examine the circumstances leading to the issuance of the initial report declaring the building unsafe, including whether any collusion, undue influence, procedural violation or mala fide intent was involved.
“The inquiry shall be concluded and the report thereof shall be submitted before the Registrar Judicial of this court positively within a period of four weeks thereafter. Upon completion of the inquiry, if any officer(s) of the Public Works Department (R&B), Jammu or the Jammu Municipal Corporation is found responsible for issuing, facilitating or endorsing the misleading unsafe report, such officer(s) shall be personally liable to pay costs of Rs 10,000 to each of the seven petitioners, towards compensation for loss of income, mental harassment and litigation expenses”, the High Court further directed.
“The amount to the tune of Rs 70,000 shall be recovered from the salaries of the delinquent officer (s) in equal proportion. However, if the inquiry discloses that the Commissioner himself acted in derogation of the binding directions of this court or was instrumental in disregarding the findings of the court constituted committee, then the entire cost liability shall be borne by the Commissioner in accordance with law”, the High Court further directed.
Allowing the petition, the High Court directed that the petitioners be permitted to occupy and use the shops declared safe and that possession be handed over forthwith so that they can resume their businesses. In respect of Shop No. 5, the High Court directed the landlords to carry out the technical repairs recommended in the engineering report before it is used.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
