Jammu Shops Case: High Court Quashes JMC Order, Restores Tenants’ Possession and Orders Probe Into ‘Unsafe’ Report | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside an order of the Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) directing a fresh safety audit of a commercial building in the city, holding that the move violated binding judicial directions and unlawfully prolonged the closure of shops run by long-standing tenants.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal in WP(C) No. 2153/2025, was pronounced on March 5, 2026 after being reserved on February 11. The Court quashed Order No. 41 of 2025 dated July 26, 2025 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, observing that it amounted to reopening an issue already settled through a court-supervised technical inquiry.

The petition had been filed by seven shopkeepers, including Anoop Uppal, who have been operating from the ground floor of a building at Exchange Road for decades and whose businesses were affected after the premises was earlier declared unsafe. Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Nirmal K. Kotwal argued that a committee constituted pursuant to earlier directions of the High Court had conducted a detailed inspection and submitted a report on May 26, 2025, clearly holding the shops to be structurally safe, with only minor repairs required in one unit. He contended that the High Court, in its July 16, 2025 judgment in an earlier round of litigation, had specifically directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter strictly in light of that report, and that ordering a fresh audit by a private firm amounted to defiance of that mandate.

The Municipal Corporation, through its counsel, sought to justify the impugned order by pointing to contradictions between earlier technical reports and argued that an independent third-party audit was necessary to resolve the issue. The private respondents, who are the owners of the building, also supported the Corporation’s stand, maintaining that the structure was unsafe.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that once a competent engineering body had examined the building under judicial supervision and submitted its findings, the administrative authority was bound to act within the contours of the Court’s directions. It observed that the Commissioner could either accept the expert report or record legally sustainable reasons for disagreeing with it, but could not sidestep the exercise altogether by ordering a fresh inquiry. The Court described the action as an “abdication of duty” and said it could not be sustained in law.

In strong terms, the Court noted that the petitioners, who depended entirely on their shops for livelihood, had suffered prolonged closure, financial losses and mental distress for nearly two years on the basis of an initial report that stood discredited by a subsequent technical assessment. It held that administrative action leading to closure of commercial establishments despite a subsisting expert certification of safety would fail the test of proportionality and infringe the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The judgment also records a prima facie concern that the initial report declaring the building unsafe may have been procured with an oblique motive to evict the tenants without recourse to lawful civil proceedings. Observing that statutory powers cannot be used for collateral purposes, the Court remarked that what cannot be achieved directly under law cannot be permitted to be done indirectly by invoking safety concerns contrary to authoritative technical findings.

Allowing the petition, the Court directed that the shopkeepers be permitted to reoccupy and use their premises forthwith, subject to there being no other legal impediment. In respect of one shop found to require structural correction, the Court ordered the landlords to carry out specified repairs before it is put to use.

In a significant direction aimed at ensuring accountability, the Court asked the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory to constitute an independent inquiry committee within two weeks to examine the circumstances leading to the issuance of the initial “unsafe” report, including any possible collusion, procedural violations or mala fide intent. The committee has been asked to submit its findings within a fixed timeframe, and the Court directed that if any is found responsible for issuing or facilitating a misleading report, they would be personally liable to compensate the petitioners. The liability could extend to the Municipal Commissioner if the inquiry finds that the Court’s directions were deliberately disregarded.

With the main writ petition disposed of in these terms, the Court also closed the connected contempt proceedings, noting that no further adjudication survived.