High Court pulls up JMC for defying judicial orders, orders probe into unsafe building report

• J&K High Court directs Chief Secretary to form inquiry panel over Exchange Road building controversy
• HC warns against misuse of ‘unsafe building’ tag to evict tenants, seeks accountability

JAMMU, Mar 5: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has strongly reprimanded the Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) for disregarding binding judicial directions in a dispute concerning commercial shops located at Exchange Road in Jammu. The court observed that the municipal commissioner acted in clear violation of earlier court orders by attempting to reopen an issue that had already been examined and resolved through a detailed technical inquiry conducted under judicial supervision.

The court has also directed the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to constitute an independent inquiry committee within two weeks to investigate the circumstances under which the building housing the shops was initially declared unsafe. The committee has been asked to determine whether the report was influenced by collusion, undue pressure, procedural lapses or any mala fide intention.

The directions were issued by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while delivering judgment in a petition filed by tenants running shops in a building located at 70, Exchange Road, Jammu. The tenants had approached the High Court challenging the demolition notice issued by the municipal authorities and alleging that the declaration of the building as unsafe was a deliberate attempt to evict them from the premises.

The dispute originated when the building owners submitted an application to the Jammu Municipal Corporation on August 29, 2024 seeking a declaration that the structure was unsafe. According to the shopkeepers, the request was made with the intention of forcing them out of the property without following proper legal eviction procedures.

Following the application, the Public Works Department (PWD), acting on the directions of JMC, issued a communication on November 13, 2024 declaring the building unsafe. On the basis of this report, the JMC subsequently issued a notice on January 7, 2025 under Section 258(2) of the JMC Act directing demolition or repairs of the building within a period of 30 days.

The tenants challenged the notice before the High Court through a writ petition, alleging that the decision had been taken without any scientific or technical inspection and without providing them an opportunity to be heard. They further alleged that the move reflected a nexus between the property owners and certain officials within the municipal administration.

Taking note of these concerns, the High Court earlier directed the engineering wing of the Public Works Department to constitute a fresh expert committee to conduct a comprehensive inspection of the building. The inspection was carried out in the presence of both landlords and tenants and under the supervision of the Additional District Magistrate, with strict adherence to the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and related rules.

The committee conducted an on-spot examination and submitted a detailed report on May 26, 2025. The report concluded that the shops occupied by the petitioners were structurally safe and suitable for public use. It further noted that only one shop required minor structural repair, specifically the replacement of a wooden plank roof with a reinforced concrete slab. The findings were subsequently endorsed by the Additional District Magistrate.

In an earlier round of litigation, the High Court had quashed the demolition notice issued by JMC and directed the Municipal Commissioner to reconsider the matter strictly in light of the engineering report and take a reasoned decision after hearing all stakeholders within two weeks.

However, instead of complying with the court’s directions, the Municipal Commissioner issued Order No. 41/2025 dated July 26, 2025 directing a private empanelled firm to conduct another safety audit of the building. The shopkeepers argued that this action effectively nullified the court’s earlier decision and was an attempt to bypass the findings of the expert committee.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while allowing the petition, quashed the said order and held that once a competent engineering committee constituted under judicial directions had submitted its findings declaring the shops safe, the Municipal Commissioner was legally bound to act on that report. Ordering another audit without justification amounted to reopening an issue that had already been settled through a legally mandated process.

The court emphasized that questions regarding the structural safety of buildings fall within the domain of technical experts and not administrative authorities. It observed that once a competent expert body submits a report based on technical evaluation, administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily question or disregard such findings unless there is clear evidence of mala fide or procedural irregularity.

The High Court further noted that directing another safety audit without adequate reasons constituted arbitrary decision-making and reflected an abdication of administrative responsibility. The judgment also recorded that the petitioners had suffered significant financial loss and disruption of livelihood for nearly two years as their shops remained closed due to the initial unsafe report.

Expressing concern over the plight of the shopkeepers, the court observed that their businesses were their sole source of income and questioned how they managed to survive during the prolonged dispute.

The court also indicated that the circumstances suggested the possibility that the initial unsafe report may have been engineered to remove tenants without following due legal process. It cautioned that the mechanism of declaring a building unsafe cannot be misused as a shortcut to evict tenants.

To ensure transparency and accountability, the High Court directed the Chief Secretary to set up an independent inquiry committee to investigate the entire episode. The committee has been asked to complete the inquiry within four weeks after its constitution and submit its report to the Registrar Judicial of the High Court.

If any officials from the Public Works Department or the Jammu Municipal Corporation are found responsible for issuing or facilitating a misleading report, the court directed that they will be personally liable to compensate the seven petitioners with Rs 10,000 each for loss of income, harassment and litigation costs.

The court further ordered that the total amount of Rs 70,000 shall be recovered from the salaries of the responsible officials. However, if the inquiry establishes that the Municipal Commissioner himself acted in violation of the court’s directions, the entire liability will be borne by him in accordance with law.

Allowing the petition, the High Court directed that the tenants be immediately permitted to occupy and operate their shops that have been declared safe. It also directed that possession be restored to them without delay so that they can resume their businesses. In the case of Shop No. 5, the landlords have been instructed to carry out the minor repairs recommended in the engineering report before the shop is used again.