The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside an order issued by the Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) that directed a fresh safety audit of a commercial building in Jammu. The court held that the Municipal Commissioner had ignored an earlier expert report prepared under court supervision and acted contrary to binding judicial directions.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal ruled that once a technical committee constituted under court orders declared the shops structurally safe, the municipal authority could not reopen the issue by ordering another inspection.
Read also:- Gym Review Row Reaches Court: Orissa High Court Refuses Relief in Police Harassment Allegations Case
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a commercial building located at 70, Exchange Road, Jammu, where several shopkeepers have been running their businesses for decades. The tenants approached the High Court after the Jammu Municipal Corporation issued actions based on an earlier report declaring the building unsafe.
According to the petitioners, the landlords had applied to the municipal authorities claiming that the building was unsafe. Acting on that request, officials initially issued a notice directing demolition or repair of the structure under the Jammu Municipal Corporation Act, 2000.
The shopkeepers challenged this action before the High Court, arguing that the declaration was made without proper inspection and that the shops were their only source of livelihood.
Read also:- MP High Court Refuses Bail in Gwalior Case Where Constable Was Dragged on Car Bonnet During NSG Drill
During earlier proceedings, the court directed authorities to form an expert engineering committee to conduct an on-site inspection in the presence of all stakeholders.
Expert Committee Report
Pursuant to the court’s direction, engineers from the Public Works Department conducted a detailed structural inspection. Their report, submitted in May 2025, concluded that the shops occupied by most petitioners were structurally safe and fit for public use.
Only one shop required minor repair involving removal of a wooden roof plank and installation of an RCC slab.
Despite this report, the Municipal Commissioner later ordered a fresh safety audit by a private empanelled firm, stating that earlier reports contained contradictions.
This order became the subject of the present writ petition.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Allows Minor to Use Mother’s Surname in Birth Certificate, Orders Fresh Record
Court’s Observations
The High Court found that the Municipal Commissioner’s decision to order a new safety audit directly violated earlier judicial directions.
“The authority is bound to act within the contours of the directions issued by the Court and cannot reopen an issue already concluded by the expert determination,” the bench observed.
Justice Nargal noted that once the court-appointed engineering committee had completed its technical evaluation, the administrative authority could not disregard that report without recording valid reasons.
The court further emphasized that matters concerning structural safety are technical in nature and should normally be decided by qualified experts rather than administrative assumptions.
The judgment also highlighted the hardship faced by the petitioners. The court noted that the shopkeepers had suffered financial loss and disruption of livelihood due to the prolonged closure of their establishments.
“The petitioners are petty shopkeepers whose livelihood depends upon these shops,” the court remarked, pointing out that arbitrary administrative action affecting their livelihood would violate constitutional protections.
The court also cautioned that declaring a building unsafe cannot be used as an indirect method to evict tenants without following proper legal procedures.
Read also:- Supreme Court Withdraws 3 Criminal Revisions from Allahabad HC Over Delay in 1994 Murder Case Trial
Court’s Decision
After examining the record, the High Court concluded that the municipal order directing another safety audit was arbitrary and contrary to earlier court directions.
The court therefore quashed the Municipal Commissioner’s order dated 26 July 2025.
It directed that the petitioners be allowed to resume their business in the shops that were declared safe by the engineering committee. For the one shop requiring repair, the landlords were instructed to carry out the recommended structural corrections before it is used.
Additionally, the court ordered the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to constitute an independent inquiry committee to examine how the initial report declaring the building unsafe was issued.
If any official is found responsible for issuing a misleading report, the court directed that compensation of ₹10,000 be paid to each of the seven petitioners for loss of income and litigation hardship.
With these directions, the High Court disposed of the writ petition and closed the connected contempt proceedings.
Case Title: Anoop Uppal & Others v. Jammu Municipal Corporation & Others
Case No.: WP(C) No. 2153/2025
Decision Date: 05 March 2026
