HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 2153/2025

CM No. 4911/2025

CM No. 5874/2025 c/w

CCP(S) No. 382/2025

Reserved on: 11.02.2026

Pronounced on: 05.03.2026

Uploaded on: 05.03.2026

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced: Full

1. Anoop Uppal, Age 70 years,

S/oChuni Lal R/o 242/4

Near Aap Shambhu Mandir,

Roop Nagar,

Tehsil & District Jammu.

2. Anu Radha Age 61 years,

Wd./o Darshan Kumar

R/o H. No.7 Nar Singh Kucha,

Panjtirthi, Tehsil & District Jammu

3. Saroj Rajput, Age 51 years,

D/o Sansar Singh Jasrotia

R/o H. No. 332 Exchange Road,

Tehsil & District Jammu.

4. Dev Kumar Age 72 years,

S/o Krishan Daas

R/o H. No. 230 Ustad Mohalla,

Tehsil&District Jammu.

5. Sanjay Pandoh Age 55 years,

S/o Late Om Parkash Pandoh

R/o 376 Jullaka Mohalla,

Tehsil&District Jammu.

6. Sitanshoo Sharma, Age 39 years,

S/o Sh. Kastori Lal Sharma

R/o 27-B Basant Nagar Janipur,

Tehsil & District Jammu.

7. Raman Bajaj, Age 54 years,

S/o Late Kailash Chander

R/o 149-A Dogra Hall,

Tehsil & District Jammu

…. Petitioner(s)

Through:- Mr. Nirmal K. Kotwal, Sr. Adv

with Mr. Rajveer Singh Isher, Adv.

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 2 of 28

Vs.

1. Jammu Municipal Corporation

through its Commissioner,

Town Hall, Jammu.

2. District Magistrate, Jammu

3. Add. District Magistrate, Jammu

4. Executive Engineer,

PWD (R&B) Division,

Jammu-East

5. Assistant Executive Engineer,

PWD (R&B) Division,

Jammu-East

6. Naresh Kumar Gandotra,

S/o Sh. Prem Nath Gandotra,

R/o H. No. 5-6 Friends Colony,

Trikuta Nagar, East-Ext,

Jammu

7. Mrs. Shobha Gandotra,

W/o Lt. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gandotra,

R/o 70-Exchange Road,

Jammu

…..Respondent(s)

Through:- Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate

vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

for R-2 & R-3

Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate

for R-1.

Mr. Nirmal Kotwal, Advocate

vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG

for R- 4 & R-5

Mr. Piyush Gupta, Advocate for R-6

& R-7.

CORAM: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL , JUDGE

JUDGMENT

Prayer:

1. Petitioners, through the medium of the instant writ petition, have

sought the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order

No. 41 of 2025 dated 26.07.2025 passed by the

Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation

(respondent No.1)

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 3 of 28

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1

to permit the petitioners to open their shops already

found safe by the committee of officers headed by

executive engineer PWD (respondent No.4)

Factual Matrix:

2. Petitioners are aggrieved of order No. 41/2025 dated 26.07.2025

issued by the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation,

whereby it has been directed that a firm empanelled for safety audit

of buildings by the Municipal Corporation, Jammu shall inspect and

furnish a detailed report within one week regarding the safety of the

building situated at 70, Exchange Road, Jammu.

3. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the Commissioner, Jammu

Municipal Corporation, directed that the said inspection shall be

carried out in the presence of representatives of the owners, i.e.,

respondent Nos. 6 and 7, as well as the tenants, i.e., the petitioners.

The petitioners claim to be tenants and are running their respective

businesses in the shops owned by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for several

decades at 70, Exchange Road, Jammu. It is the specific case of the

petitioners that they have been carrying out lawful business activities

from the said shops for decades and that the shops are their sole

source of livelihood. It has also been clarified that the building

consists of residential and commercial portions, and the petitioners

are tenants in the commercial portion situated on the ground floor.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioners that respondent Nos. 6 and 7,

with mala fide intention to forcibly evict them, submitted an

application dated 29.08.2024 before the Jammu Municipal

Corporation seeking declaration of the building as unsafe. Pursuant

thereto, respondent No. 1 directed respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to obtain

a safety/unsafety certificate from the Public Works Department vide

communication dated 07.10.2024. Thereafter, respondent No. 4,

Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Jammu East, issued

communication dated 13.11.2024 declaring the building unsafe.

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 4 of 28

5. Based on the aforesaid communication, the Commissioner, Jammu

Municipal Corporation, issued notice dated 07.01.2025,

purportedly under Section 258(2) of the Jammu Municipal

Corporation Act, 2000, directing demolition or securing/repair of

the building within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the said

notice, failing which, it was conveyed that action under rules shall

be initiated against the petitioners. Although the said notice was

addressed to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 but the same directly

affected the petitioners, who were occupying the shops in question.

Feeling aggrieved thereof, the petitioners preferred writ petition

bearing WP(C) No. 299/2025, challenging the aforesaid notice

dated 07.01.2025 and the communication dated 13.11.2024 on

various grounds including violations of natural justice congenial

between private owners and Municipal Authorities and also

absence of any scientific inspection.

6. The further case of the petitioners is that they came to know of the

aforesaid demolition notice only upon receiving eviction notice

dated 22.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 1 claiming that the

building had been declared unsafe and had to be vacated.

7. The matter did not end there. The Jammu Municipal Corporation

issued yet another order dated 26.07.2025 vide No. 41/2025,

allegedly in compliance with the direction passed by this Court on

16.07.2025, wherein after hearing both the parties as well as

considering the clarification of the Executive Engineer, Division

Jammu East, regarding issuing contradictory reports dated

13.11.2024 and 26.05.2025, it was held that the firm empanelled

for safety audit of the building by Municipal Corporation, Jammu,

shall be directed to inspect and furnish a detailed report within a

week with regard to the safety of the building situated at 70,

Exchange Road, Jammu, and the Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation, Jammu, through the aforesaid order dated

26.07.2025, directed that the said inspection shall be done in the

presence of representatives of the owners as well as the tenants.

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 5 of 28

8. The aforesaid notice and the communication were called in

question by the petitioners in another petition which came to be

registered as WP(C) No. 299/2025. However, this Court, vide

order dated 08.08.2025 passed in the instant matter has kept the

order impugned dated 26.07.2025 in abeyance.

9. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner that this Court, vide order dated

02.04.2025 in WP(C) No. 299/2025, has passed a detailed order,

wherein the following direction was issued:

“06. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances

of the case and the urgency involved, this Court direct

respondent nos. 4 and 5 to constitute an expert committee

of the engineering wing, afresh, with a view to conduct an

on spot inspection of all the shops occupied by the

petitioners and the building as well separately. The entire

exercise of carrying on the inspection and submitting the

report to this Court with regard to the condition of the said

shops as well as building shall be done strictly in

accordance with the procedure as envisaged under the

Municipal Corporation Act and the rules framed

thereunder by associating the petitioners and other

stakeholders including the landlord of the said building as

well as all the tenants of the shops on or before the next

date of hearing.

07. It is made clear that the assessment of the building and

taking of the samples of the shops in question be carried

out in presence of the owner of the building/shops, the

tenants (petitioners herein) occupying the said shops and

the representatives of PWD(R&B) by notifying the date in

advance so that all the parties are aware of such process.

The entire exercise shall be carried out in presence of

respondent no. 3 (Additional District Magistrate Jammu)

and the report be submitted by respondent no. 4 (Executive

Engineer PWD (R&B) Division Jammu East and

respondent no. 5 (Assistant Executive Engineer PWD

(R&B) Sub-Division No. 1 Jammu East in consultation

with respondent no. 1 (Commissioner, Jammu Municipal

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 6 of 28

Corporation) under the supervision of respondent no. 3

before this Court on or before the next date of hearing.

08. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to give

the detailed particulars of all petitioners, who are occupying

the said shops and are before this Court today against

proper receipt to Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG so that

they are notified well in advance.”

10. Thus, from a bare perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparently

clear that this Court directed respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to constitute

an expert committee of the Engineering Wing afresh with a view to

conduct on-spot inspection of all the shops in question occupied by

the petitioners and the building as well, separately, strictly in terms

of the procedure envisaged under the Municipal Corporation Act

and the Rules framed thereunder, by associating the petitioners and

other stakeholders, including the landlords of the said building,

i.e., respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein, as well as the tenants of the

shops (petitioners herein).

11. This Court further made it clear that the assessment of the building

and taking of samples of the shops in question shall be carried out

in the presence of the owners of the building/shops, the tenant-

petitioners occupying the said shops, and the representatives of

PWD (R&B) Department, by notifying the date in advance so that

all parties are made aware of such process. The entire exercise was

required to be carried out in the presence of the Additional District

Magistrate, Jammu. The order further reveals that the report was

required to be submitted by respondent No. 4, Executive Engineer,

PWD (R&B), Division Jammu East, and respondent No. 5,

Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Sub-Division No. 1

Jammu East, in consultation with respondent No. 1,

Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, under the

supervision of respondent No. 3 before this Court.

12. In compliance with the aforesaid order, a Committee was

constituted pursuant to the order passed by this Court, wherein all

the stakeholders were taken on board. The said Committee

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 7 of 28

conducted on-spot inspection of the building as well as the shops.

The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Sub-Division

Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, submitted the report on 26.05.2025, stating

clearly that the shops occupied by petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 were

structurally safe, and insofar as one shop was concerned, minor

repairs were required to make the same fit for public use.

13. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Assistant Executive Engineer

has submitted a detailed report, which has been placed on record

with the instant petition. From a bare perusal of the report, it is

apparent that the shops which are occupied by the petitioners are

safe and fit for public use, the details of which find mention in the

inquiry report barring one shop, i.e., Shop No. 5, which has been

declared fit for use subject to removal of the wooden plank roof

and laying of an RCC slab.

14. Once it is the specific case of the petitioners that the inspection had

already been conducted by the Engineering Wing after taking on

board all the stakeholders in compliance with the order passed by

this Court, and the report submitted by the Engineering Wing holds

the field as on date and has not been called in question by any

person, there was no occasion for the Commissioner to have issued

the aforesaid order which is impugned in the instant petition.

15. The petitioners, with a view to fortify their claim, have placed on

record the aforesaid report, which was later submitted to the

Additional District Magistrate, Jammu, who concurred with and

endorsed the same.

16. According to Mr. Nirmal Kotwal, learned senior counsel, the

Commissioner ought to have relied upon the report submitted by

the PWD (R&B) Department which was pursuant to the direction

issued by this Court, and which report was submitted after taking

on board all the stakeholders, and no grievance was ever raised by

any party challenging the said report, and thus there was no

occasion for the Commissioner to raise doubts about the said

report which had been accepted by all.

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 8 of 28

17. According to Mr. Nirmal Kotwal, learned senior counsel,

reopening of an issue which already stood concluded by this Court

would amount to acting in derogation to the mandate and spirit of

the order passed by this Court, wherein a direction was issued to

reconsider the issue in the light of the report already submitted by

the Engineering Wing. However, the Commissioner, in most

contemptuous manner on his own has rejected the said report,

which was beyond his jurisdiction once the matter already stood

concluded by this Court and the Court appointed committee

comprising of the engineering wing of PWD (R&B) has already

declared the shops as safe.

18. The record reveals that this court in the earlier round of litigation

after hearing all the parties, passed a final judgment on 16.07.2025

in WP(C) No. 299/2025 quashing the order dated 07.01.2025 and

directing the Commissioner, JMC, to reconsider the matter strictly

in the light of the report submitted by PWD (R&B) Department

dated 26.05.2025, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all

the stakeholders by passing a reasoned order within two weeks but

the Municipal Commissioner, acting as super authority, over and

above this Court and in flagrant violation of the direction passed

by this Court, has issued the impugned order which, is not

sustainable in the eyes of law, being contemptuous and tantamount

to reopening an issue which already stood concluded by this Court.

19. Surprisingly, respondent No. 1, instead of complying with the

binding directions of this Court, passed a fresh order No. 41/2025

dated 26.07.2025, which is impugned in the present petition,

whereby respondent No. 1 directed that a further audit be carried

out by a private empanelled firm, thereby evading the obligation to

decide the matter finally.

20. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned

order is evasive, non-speaking, and has the effect of nullifying the

binding directions of this Court dated 16.07.2025. It is further

submitted that, by virtue of the impugned order, the issue which

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 9 of 28

had already been clinched has been reopened, thereby prolonging

the agony and uncertainty faced by the petitioners.

21. As per the petitioners, the impugned order is in violation of the

judgment passed by this Court dated 16.07.2025, whereby,

directions were issued to reconsider the matter in light of the report

of respondent No. 4 dated 26.05.2025, after hearing all parties by

passing a fresh order.

22. It is further submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking,

devoid of any reasoning, finding, or reference to the report

submitted by PWD (R&B) dated 26.05.2025, and thus the action of

respondent No. 1 falls within the realm of abuse of process. The

learned counsel submits that the impugned order is contemptuous

and ignores the findings of the competent public authority, i.e.,

PWD (R&B), thereby denying finality to judicial adjudication and

causing undue harassment to the petitioners.

23. It has also been alleged that the decision of the Commissioner is

intended to aid the private interest of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 at

the cost of public justice. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned

order is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural

justice and is liable to be quashed.

24. Therefore, this Court, after feeling prima facie satisfied on the very

first day of hearing, vide order dated 08.08.2025, has kept the

aforesaid order dated 26.07.2025 in abeyance by making it clear

that the Municipal Commissioner shall be at liberty to take a

decision in accordance with the direction dated 16.07.2025 passed

in WP(C) No. 299/2025.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents:

25. Reply stands filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 6 and 7.

26. Mr. Mayank Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No. 1, while raising preliminary objections, submits

that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the same

constitutes a second round of litigation initiated by the petitioners

on the same cause of action, wherein the same petitioners had

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 10 of 28

already challenged notice dated 07.01.2025 and communication

dated 13.11.2024 by filing a writ petition which was registered as

WP(C) No. 299/2025, whereby directions were issued to

respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to demolish, secure, or repair the building

situated at House No. 70, Exchange Road, Jammu.

27. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1 convened a personal

hearing on 21.07.2025 in his office chamber, which was attended

by officials of the Municipal Corporation, owners (respondent

Nos. 6 and 7), and the tenants (petitioners herein). After hearing

the parties, following directions were issued:

“(a) The Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Division Jammu East

was asked to furnish an explanation regarding the contradiction in

the reports dated 13.11.2024 and 26.05.2025.

(b) The Joint Commissioner (Works) was directed to ensure that a

representative of the firm empanelled with JMC for Building

Safety Audits appears on the next date of hearing.”

28. Thus, the respondents have justified the issuance of the impugned

order on the ground of carrying out the safety audit by an

independent third party, which firm was directed to carry out a

comprehensive safety inspection of the building situated at 70,

Exchange Road, Jammu, in the presence of both the owners and

tenants and submit a detailed report within one week. However,

respondent No. 1 has not filed any para-wise reply to the

averments made by the writ petitioners and has instead filed the

reply by taking only preliminary objections.

29. Another set of reply also stands filed on behalf of respondent Nos.

6 and 7, wherein objections have been raised that no cause of

action has accrued to the petitioners for filing the instant petition.

Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have justified their stand by asserting that

the building is unsafe and have also justified the action of the

Jammu Municipal Corporation by virtue of the impugned order.

Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, while filing their reply, have also

questioned the report submitted by the Engineering Wing of PWD

(R&B) pursuant to the order passed by this Court, although no

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 11 of 28

formal challenge has been made by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to the

said report before any competent forum.

30. The record further reveals that the instant petition was listed

before this Court on 08.08.2025, wherein the Coordinate Bench of

this Court was pleased to keep in abeyance the impugned order

dated 26.07.2025 issued by respondent No. 1. While granting the

aforesaid interim protection, this Court further clarified that the

Municipal Commissioner shall be at liberty to take a decision

strictly in accordance with the directions dated 16.07.2025 passed

in WP(C) No. 299/2025.

31. However, Ms. Priyanka Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG for respondent Nos. 2 and

3, has not filed any separate reply and has instead relied upon the

reply filed by respondent No. 1. Similarly, no separate reply has

been filed by Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Rather, Mr. Nirmal Kotwal,

learned Senior Counsel, has placed reliance upon the report

submitted by PWD (R&B) pursuant to the directions passed by this

Court dated 02.04.2025 in WP(C) No. 299/2025, and has

submitted that there was no occasion for respondent No. 1 to have

issued the impugned order in light of the said report.

Legal analysis:

32. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the

record.

33. I have also perused the impugned order passed by respondent No.

1, minutely.

34. It appears that the reason for issuing the impugned order was the

alleged contradictory reports dated 13.11.2024 and 26.05.2025.

Being influenced by the said reports, the Municipal Commissioner

directed that a firm empanelled for safety audit by the Municipal

Corporation, Jammu, shall inspect and furnish a detailed report

regarding the safety of the building situated at 70, Exchange Road,

Jammu, in the presence of representatives of the owners as well as

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 12 of 28

the tenants. However, this Court is of the view that the order

passed by the Commissioner is in flagrant violation of the

judgment passed by this Court dated 16.07.2025 in WP(C) No.

299/2025, whereby a specific direction was issued to reconsider

the matter strictly in light of the report of respondent No.4, i.e.,

PWD (R&B), Jammu East dated 26.05.2025, after hearing all

parties and passing a fresh order within two weeks. The

Commissioner, while passing the impugned order, has violated the

said direction with impunity and brushed aside the report

submitted by the committee of engineers constituted pursuant to

the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by this Court in the earlier

round of litigation.

35. It is trite that once a competent court issues a direction requiring

reconsideration strictly in light of a specified report, the scope of

such reconsideration stands circumscribed by the judicial mandate

itself. The authority is bound to act within the contours of the

directions issued and cannot reopen or re-agitate the foundational

issue which stood concluded by virtue of the expert determination

obtained pursuant to the orders of this Court.

36. Reconsideration “in light of the report” necessarily obligated the

authority either to accept the findings of the expert body or, in the

alternative, to record cogent, legally sustainable and reasoned

grounds for differing from such findings. In absence of any such

recorded reasons, the direction for a fresh safety audit through

another agency amounts to abdication of the duty cast upon

respondent No. 1 and cannot be sustained in law.

37. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact emerging from the record

that the petitioners are shopkeepers dependent upon the said

premises for their livelihood, who have been carrying on their

businesses in the subject premises and have suffered severe

prejudice, financial loss and interruption of livelihood for nearly

two years on account of an initial official report declaring the

building structurally unsafe. The said report, which formed the

basis of administrative action by the Municipal Commissioner and

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 13 of 28

was also noticed by this Court at an interim stage, has now been

rendered factually incorrect upon a detailed, court-supervised

inquiry conducted by the Engineering Wing of the PWD

Department under the supervision of a Magistrate. The subsequent

technical report categorically concludes that the building is

structurally safe, thereby vindicating the consistent stand taken by

the petitioners from the very inception. The reliance upon an

erroneous report has thus resulted in avoidable litigation,

prolonged closure of shops, loss of income and mental anguish to

the petitioners, which squarely warrants judicial scrutiny.

38. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the determination as to

whether a building is structurally safe or unsafe squarely falls

within the exclusive domain of technical experts, i.e. the

competent Engineering Wing or a duly authorized technical

agency. Courts of law do not possess the technical expertise to

independently assess structural safety, nor are they expected to

substitute expert opinion with judicial assessment. Once a

competent engineering authority, after conducting an extensive

technical exercise under the supervision of a Magistrate, submits

its report, there remains no legal justification either for this Court

or for the administrative authorities to doubt the findings recorded

therein, unless the same is shown to be perverse, mala fide, or

subject matter of challenge before any appropriate fora.

39. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in “State of Tamil Nadu and others v.

K. Shyam Sunder and others” (2011) AIR SC 3470, has

authoritatively held that in matters involving technical and expert

determination, courts should ordinarily refrain from substituting

their own views for that of expert bodies and must show due

deference to expert opinion, by holding as under:

“V. Interference by the Court with expert body's opinion

42. Undoubtedly, the court lacks expertise especially in disputes

relating to policies of pure academic educational matters.

Therefore, generally it should abide by the opinion of the expert

body. The Constitution Bench of this Court in University Of

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 14 of 28

Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491 (AIR p. 496 , para

13) held that “normally the courts should be slow to interfere

with the opinions expressed by the experts”. It would normally be

wise and safe for the courts to leave such decisions to experts who

are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts

generally can be. This view has consistently been reiterated by

this Court in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal ( 1990) 2

SCC 746 , (1990) 13 ATC 732, AIR 1990 SC 1402, Victoria

Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity ( 2010) 3

SCC 732 , AIR 2010 SC 1285, Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L

Ramesh ( 2010) 8 SCC 372 and State of H.P v. H.P Nizi

Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh (2011) 6 SCC 597.”

40. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in “Anahita Pandole (Dr.) v.

State of Maharashtra & Others”, Writ Petition No. 1132/2002

along with connected matters, decided on 05.05.2004, has held

that where a statutory expert body is vested with authority to

render technical recommendations, the administrative head is

bound to act in accordance with such expert opinion and cannot

substitute it with his personal view. It was observed as under:

“26. Equally fundamental, to our mind, is the objection

to the validity of the approach which has been adopted

by the Municipal Commissioner in the present case. The

Heritage Conservation Committee is an expert body

charged and vested with a special obligation under the

provisions contained in D.C Regulation 67. Regulation

67(2) mandates that the Commissioner “shall act on the

advice of in consultation with” the Heritage

Conservation Committee. The power of the Municipal

Commissioner to overrule the decision of the Committee

is confined to exceptional cases and for reasons to be

recorded in writing. The power is to be exercised by the

Commissioner himself and is not to be delegated to any

other Officer. In our judgment delivered on 19th April,

2003, we had occasion to consider the status of the

Heritage Conservation Committee and the role and

position of the Municipal Commissioner in relation to

the recommendations of the Committee. We have held

that the Municipal Commissioner must invariably act in

accordance with the expert recommendations of the

Committee. Committee consists of experts drawn from

the areas of urban conservation, environment and

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 15 of 28

history, apart from experts with experience in structural

engineering. What the Municipal Commissioner has

done in the present case is simply to reject the view of

the Heritage Conservation Committee and to substitute

his own personal opinion for the view which has been

formed by the Heritage Committee. What the Municipal

Commissioner does is to tell us that he does not agree

with the Committee. There are no exceptional reasons

for the Municipal Commissioner to have overridden the

Heritage Committee…

47. The present case relates to the illuminated hoarding

admeasuring 16 ft. × 12 ft. erected in the compound of

Islam Club situated at N.A Purandare Marg,

Chowpatty. Chowpatty sea face buildings have been

listed at Sr. No. 458 of the Heritage List. The Heritage

Committee has dealt with this hoarding at Sr. No. 22 in

its second list and has come to the conclusion that

Guidelines 1 and 3 of its guidelines are violated by the

hoarding. The Expert Committee appointed by this

Court was also of the view that the hoarding was liable

to be removed since it was in violation of Guidelines

16(a) and (g) framed by the Municipal Corporation. The

Municipal Corporation had not accepted the

recommendation and was of the view that the hoarding

should be retained since it is on a Grade III building.

We have specifically disapproved of the approach of the

Municipal Commissioner and overruled his findings in

regard to Grade III structures. For the reasons already

indicated in the body of the main judgment, we are of

the view that the Municipal Commissioner was not

justified in interfering with the well considered findings

of the Heritage Conservation Committee. We do not find

any merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected.”

41. Once the committee of engineers was constituted in compliance

with the directions passed by this Court vide order dated

02.04.2025, and the said committee submitted a detailed report

regarding each and every shop occupied by the petitioners and the

residential building in the presence of the Additional District

Magistrate, Jammu, the Commissioner was legally bound to

follow the said report in its letter and spirit and was under a legal

obligation qua the petitioners to have acted in furtherance of the

said report by allowing the petitioners to carry on their business in

their respective shops in conformity with the findings recorded

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 16 of 28

therein. However, to the contrary, the Commissioner, respondent

No. 1 herein, has acted in contravention of the directions passed

by this Court dated 16.07.2025 and has brushed aside the report

of the Committee of engineers constituted pursuant to the order

passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Prima facie,

it appears that the Commissioner, under a misconception of law,

with a view to overreach the directions passed by this Court, issued

the impugned order which tantamount to reopening an issue which

already stood concluded by virtue of the report submitted by the

said committee and that too after giving an opportunity to all the

stakeholders. Once a competent expert body has rendered its

findings pursuant to judicial directions, the administrative authority

cannot sit in appeal over such findings, nor can it arrogate to itself

the power to order a fresh inquiry through another agency.

42. This Court, in the earlier round of litigation, had already quashed

the impugned notice/order dated 07.01.2025 issued by respondent

No. 1, whereby directions were issued to respondent Nos. 6 and 7

to demolish, secure or repair the building strictly as per norms and

rules within 30 days, failing which action under rules was to be

initiated. Though the said notice was addressed to respondent

Nos. 6 and 7, but in a way it directly pertains to the petitioners,

who are the tenants of the shops in question. This Court, while

quashing the aforesaid notice dated 07.01.2025, had directed

respondent No. 1 to reconsider the matter strictly in light of the

report of respondent No. 4 dated 26.05.2025, after hearing all the

parties by passing a fresh order within a period of two weeks.

However, instead of reconsidering the matter in light of the said

report, the Commissioner, in violation of the directions of this

Court, has brushed aside the said report and issued fresh

directions to an empanelled firm for conducting a safety audit and

furnishing a detailed report which was beyond his domain.

43. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the order issued by

the Commissioner, which is the subject matter of the instant

petition, is contrary to the directions passed by this Court and

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 17 of 28

appears to be an attempt to overreach the binding directions

issued by this Court and therefore cannot sustain the test of law

and is liable to be set aside. A duty was cast upon the

Commissioner to reconsider the matter strictly in light of the

report of respondent No. 4 dated 26.05.2025, instead of referring

the matter to another empanelled private firm for safety audit by

ignoring the report already submitted by the committee of

engineers constituted under the supervision of the Additional

District Magistrate, Jammu, pursuant to the directions passed by

this Court dated 02.04.2025.

44. An administrative order which disregards a binding judicial

direction and fails to assign reasons for discarding an expert

report placed before it is arbitrary. Reasoned decision making is

an essential facet of fairness in administrative action, and absence

of reasons renders the exercise of power susceptible to judicial

correction.

45. Further, where administrative action results in closure of

commercial establishments and deprivation of livelihood despite a

subsisting expert certification of structural safety, such action

must also satisfy the test of proportionality. Closure of shops

declared safe by a duly constituted technical committee would be

disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved and therefore

constitutionally impermissible.

46. It is well settled that once a Court-appointed inquiry committee

has concluded its inquiry after due testing and technical

evaluation of a building, the administrative authorities are

denuded of any power to constitute another committee or order a

parallel inquiry on the same issue. Any such action would not

only amount to reopening a settled issue but would also constitute

a clear attempt to overreach and nullify the binding judicial

directions. The action of the Municipal Commissioner in referring

the matter afresh to an empanelled firm, despite the subsistence of

a valid and unchallenged expert report, prima facie reflects an

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 18 of 28

excess of jurisdiction, rendering the impugned order legally

unsustainable.

47. This Court is, thus, of the considered view that the Commissioner,

Jammu Municipal Corporation, has not only failed to comply with

the order passed by this Court dated 02.04.2025, but has also acted

in contravention of the binding directions issued by this Court vide

judgment dated 16.07.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 299/2025. Once

the report submitted by the Engineering Wing pursuant to the

directions of this Court had been placed on record and accepted by

both the parties, as the same has neither been challenged before any

competent forum nor set aside, respondent No.1 could neither have

ignored the same nor referred the matter afresh for a safety audit.

48. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in „Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs Union

of India and ors.‟ (2012) 1 SCC 273, has emphatically reiterated

that orders passed by constitutional courts are binding on all

authorities and must be complied with in letter and spirit, by

holding as under:

“20. ……. Every person is required to respect and obey

the orders of the court with due dignity for the

institution. The government departments are no

exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of

the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the

court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it

must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or

difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court,

least that is expected of the government department or

its functionaries is to approach the court for extension

of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the

party neither obeys the orders of the court nor

approaches the court making appropriate prayers for

extension of time or variation of order, the only possible

inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of

the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying

out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the

court's orders would reflect the attitude of the party

concerned to under-mine the authority of the courts, its

dignity and the administration of justice…”

49. It is evident from the record that the issue regarding the structural

safety of the shops already stood concluded on the basis of the

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 19 of 28

report dated 26.05.2025 submitted by the Engineering Wing

pursuant to the directions of this Court. The judgment dated

16.07.2025 passed by this Court directing reconsideration in light

of the said report had attained finality. Therefore, respondent No.1

was under a legal obligation to act in furtherance of the said

judgment and reconsider the matter accordingly, instead of

reopening the issue by directing another safety audit. Viewed from

any angle, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law, as

the same is arbitrary, contrary to the directions of this Court and

tantamount to reopening an issue which already stood concluded.

50. It is a well-settled principle that judicial and administrative

processes must be founded on integrity, truth, and fidelity to law

and facts. In the present case, the circumstances prima facie

suggest that the initial report declaring the building unsafe was

obtained with the oblique intention of dispossessing the petitioners

from the shops in question without resorting to lawful eviction

proceedings. If an official report is procured or influenced to

achieve such a collateral purpose, the same would amount to

fraud on power and would vitiate all consequential actions

founded thereon. The Supreme Court has also consistently held

that fraud or misrepresentation which induces judicial or quasi-

judicial action renders the proceedings void ab initio. In this

regard, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Vishnu Vardhan @

Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, 2025 INSC 884,

has held as under:

“61. In decisions abound, the Courts have consistently

nullified orders obtained through fraudulent means. Key

excerpts from some of these decisions read thus:

....c. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., this Court

held:

21. Now, it is well-settled principle of law that if any

judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said

to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries,

Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed: "Fraud avoids

all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal."

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 20 of 28

22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment,

decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court,

tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of

the law. Such a judgment, decree or order— by the first

court or by the final court—has to be treated as nullity

by every court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged

in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or

even in collateral proceedings.”

51. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.

and Others v. Union of India and Others” (AIR 1986 SC 872),

has elaborately explained the doctrine of “fraud on power” and

has held that where statutory power is exercised for a purpose

other than that for which it is conferred, such action stands

vitiated in law, by holding as under:

“119. Fraud on power voids the order if it is not

exercised bona fide for the end design. There is a

distinction between exercise of power in good faith and

misuse in bad faith. The former arises when an authority

misuses its power in breach of law, say, by taking into

account bona fide, and with best of intentions, some

extraneous matters or by ignoring relevant matters.

That would render the impugned act or order ultra

vires. It would be a case of fraud on powers. The misuse

in bad faith arises when the power is exercised for an

improper motive, say, to satisfy a private or personal

grudge or for wreaking vengeance of a Minister as in S.

Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72, (1964)

4 SCR 733. A power is exercised maliciously if its

repository is motivated by personal animosity towards

those who are directly affected by its exercise. Use of a

power for an “alien” purpose other than the one for

which the power is conferred is mala fide use of that

power. Same is the position when an order is made for a

purpose other than that which finds place in the order.

The ulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks of the

misuse of the power and it was observed as early as in

1904 by Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free

Church of Scotland v. OvertownLR 1904 AC 515 “that

there is a condition implied in this as well as in other

instruments which create powers, namely, that the

powers shall be used bona fide for the purpose for

which they are conferred”. It was said by Warrington,

C.J in Short v. Poole Corpn. LR 1926 ChD 66 that: “No

public body can be regarded as having statutory

authority to act in bad faith or from corrupt motives,

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 21 of 28

and any action purporting to be of that body, but proved

to be committed in bad faith or from corrupt motives,

would certainly be held to be inoperative.”

52. In “State of Punjab and Another vs. Gurdial Singh and

Others”, (1980 AIR SC 319), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has

held as under:

“9. The question, then, is what is mala fides in the

jurisprudence of power? Legal malice is gibberish

unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular

concept of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith which

invalidates the exercise of power — sometimes called

colourable exercise or fraud on power and oftentimes

overlaps motives, passions and satisfactions — is the

attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of

power by simulation or pretension of gaining a

legitimate goal. If the use of the power is for the

fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or

catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The action is bad

where the true object is to reach an end different from

the one for which the power is entrusted, goaded by

extraneous considerations, good or bad, but irrelevant

to the entrustment. When the custodian of power is

influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those

for promotion of which the power is vested the court

calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by

illusion. In a broad, blurred sense, Benjamin Disraeli

was not off the mark even in law when he stated: “I

repeat . . . that all power is a trust — that we are

accountable for its exercise — that, from the people, and

for the people, all springs, and all must exist”. Fraud on

power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for

the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to

moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the

action impugned is to effect some object which is beyond

the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be

malice-laden or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt

the resultant act is bad. If considerations, foreign to the

scope of the power or extraneous to the statute, enter the

verdict or impel the action, mala fides or fraud on

power vitiates the acquisition or other official act.”

53. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that the petitioners are

petty shopkeepers whose livelihood is directly and exclusively

dependent upon the shops in question. They are lawful tenants who

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 22 of 28

earn their daily bread from these establishments. Any arbitrary

administrative action of Municipal Commissioner resulting in

closure of the shops, despite a clear cut finding by the Engineering

Wing declaring them safe, subsequently would not only be illegal

but would also amount to a direct infringement of the petitioners‟

fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. Administrative discretion cannot be

exercised in a manner that jeopardizes the subsistence of citizens

without lawful justification. The petitioners were subjected to

prolonged closure of their shops, avoidable litigation and mental

anguish on the basis of an initial report which has since been found

to be factually incorrect upon a technically detailed inquiry

conducted under judicial supervision. Such circumstances also

warrant deeper examination to preserve public confidence in

institutional reports and regulatory processes. Besides, the

implication and fallout of such false reports in nation building

more particularly, when a building which was actually safe but

declared unsafe at the behest of the landlord is of serious concern.

54. It pains this Court to note that how these poor shopkeepers would

have survived during the intervening period when the shops in

question were their sole source of livelihood. They have remained

entangled in avoidable and uncalled-for litigation, for no fault

attributable to them for such a long time. This prolonged closure

of their establishments has caused financial hardship and

disruption of their daily sustenance, which this Court cannot

overlook while adjudicating the present controversy.

55. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,

the record prima facie reveals that the initial report declaring the

building unsafe has been completely discredited by a detailed

inquiry conducted under judicial supervision. Despite this, the

said report was acted upon to the grave detriment of the

petitioners. This Court is prima facie satisfied that there exist

serious circumstances warranting an inference that the initial

unsafe report may have been engineered at the instance or under

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 23 of 28

the influence of the landlord, with an oblique motive to oust the

lawful tenants by bypassing the legally prescribed civil process

for ejectment. This court cannot countenance a situation where

false documentation and engineered misrepresentation was

deployed as a tactical device to deprive citizens of their livelihood

and to entangle them in needless and protracted litigation.

56. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the vital

distinction between commercial and residential tenancies and the

profound impact of eviction from commercial premises on the

right to livelihood, in “Gauri Shanker and Others v. Union Of

India and Others” (AIR 1995 SC 55), has held as under:

“11. It is also appropriate to state that a commercial

tenancy is much more valuable and precious than a

residential tenancy. In the above decision of the

Supreme Court, this aspect was highlighted to the

following effect in paragraph 34 of the judgment thus:

“Business carried on by a tenant of any commercial

premises may be and often is, his only occupation and

the source of livelihood of the tenant and his family. Out

of the income earned by the tenant from his business in

the commercial premises, the tenant maintains himself

and his family; and the tenant, if he is residing in a

tenanted house, may also be paying his rent out of the

said income. Even if a tenant is evicted from his

residential premises, he may with the earnings out of the

business be in a position to arrange for some other

accommodation for his residence with his family. When,

however, a tenant is thrown out of the commercial

premises his business which enables him to maintain

himself and his family comes to a standstill. It is

common knowledge that it is much more difficult to find

suitable business premises than to find suitable premises

for residence. It is no secret that for securing

commercial accommodation, large sums of money by

way of salami, even though not legally payable, may

have to be paid and rents of commercial premises are

usually very high. Besides, a business which has been

carried on for years at a particular place has its own

goodwill and other distinct advantages…….”

57. Furthermore, this Court reiterates that the law does not permit

adoption of indirect methods to achieve what cannot be done

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 24 of 28

directly. If the intention is to seek eviction of tenants, the only

lawful course available is to initiate appropriate civil proceedings

for ejectment in accordance with law. The process of declaring a

building unsafe cannot be misused as a tool to dispossess tenants

or to scuttle their lawful occupation. 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. Any such exercise would be a colorable use of

power and an abuse of the administrative process.

58. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “NOIDA Entrepreneurs

Association v. NOIDA & Others”, (2011) 6 SCC 508, has

reiterated the settled principle that what cannot be done directly in

law cannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly by adopting

circuitous methods, by holding as under:

“22. It is a settled proposition of law that whatever is

prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be affected

by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the

principle of "quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur at

omne per quod devenitur ad illud", which means

"whenever a thing is prohibited, it is prohibited whether

done directly or indirectly”.

23. In Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh & Anr., AIR 1979 SC

381, this Court has observed that an authority cannot be

permitted to evade a law by "shift or contrivance."

While deciding the said case, the Court placed reliance

on the judgment in Fox v. Bishop of Chester, (1824) 2 B

&C 635, wherein it has been observed as under:-

"To carry out effectually the object of a statute, it must

be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid

doing in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it

has prohibited or enjoined.”

59. Similarly, in „State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. K. Shyam

Sunder and Others‟, (2011) AIR SC 3470, the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court again emphasized this doctrine under the heading

“What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly” and

observed as under:

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 25 of 28

“VI. What cannot be done directly—cannot be done

indirectly

43. “21. It is a settled proposition of law that what

cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done

obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by

law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect

and circuitous contrivance on the principle of quando

aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur at omne per quod

devenitur ad illud. An authority cannot be permitted to

evade a law by „shift or contrivance‟.” (See: Jagir Singh

v. Ranbir Singh, AIR 1979 SC 381; M.C. Mehta v.

Kamal Nath & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1997; and Sant Lal

Gupta & Ors. v. Modern Co-operative Group Housing

Society Ltd. & Ors., JT 2010 (11) SC 273).

60. Thus, this Court is of the view that one cannot adopt a different

mechanism to achieve a nefarious design by scuttling the process

envisaged under law, i.e., the filing of a civil suit for ejectment

instead of adopting indirect method of throwing the tenants

outside by getting the building declared as unsafe.

Conclusion:-

61. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order

dated 26.07.2025 is palpably bad in the eyes of law, being

arbitrary and contrary to the binding directions issued by this

Court, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the

same is hereby quashed/set aside for the reasons recorded in the

preceding paragraphs.

62. Since the committee of engineers had already submitted a

detailed report pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in

WP(C) No.299/2025 dated 02.04.2025, in the presence of the

Additional District Magistrate, Jammu, after affording

opportunity to all stakeholders and upon detailed analysis of

relevant parameters, the said committee prepared a

comprehensive status report in respect of each shop, stair and

residential portion of the building. All concerned officers of the

PWD (R&B) are signatories to the said report. The report has

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 26 of 28

neither been called in question before any competent forum nor

set aside and as such continues to hold the field.

63. This Court reiterates that reopening of an issue which has already

stood concluded pursuant to the directions passed by this Court,

would amount to overreaching the said direction and acting in

derogation to the mandate and spirit of the judgment dated

16.07.2025, wherein a specific direction was issued to reconsider

the matter strictly in light of the report already submitted by the

Engineering Wing. Respondent No.1 was, therefore, bound to act

in compliance with the said judgment and could not have

reopened the matter, which was beyond his jurisdiction and

contrary to the directions of this Court.

64. In light of the foregoing discussion and the findings recorded

hereinabove, this Court deems it appropriate to allow and dispose

of the petition with the following directions:

a) The petitioners shall be permitted to use and occupy the

shops which have been declared structurally safe and fit for

public use by the Engineering Wing, and possession thereof

shall be handed over to them forthwith so that they may

resume their respective business activities, subject to there

being no other legal impediment. Insofar as Shop No. 5 is

concerned, the technical report indicates that it shall be fit

for occupation only upon removal of the existing wooden

plank roof and laying of an RCC slab. Respondent Nos. 6

and 7 are, accordingly, directed to carry out the said

rectification expeditiously, strictly in accordance with the

technical recommendations contained in the report.

b) To ensure transparency, accountability and to prevent

any misuse of official process, the Chief Secretary, Union

Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, shall constitute an

independent inquiry committee within a period of two

weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment,

who shall examine the circumstances leading to the

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 27 of 28

issuance of the initial report declaring the building unsafe,

including whether any collusion, undue influence,

procedural violation or mala fide intent was involved. The

said 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/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) to each of the seven

petitioners, towards compensation for loss of income,

mental harassment and litigation expenses. The said amount

to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- (Rs. Seventy Thousand) shall be

recovered from the salaries of the delinquent officer (s) in

equal proportion. However, if the inquiry discloses that the

Commissioner (respondent No. 1) 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

report of the inquiry committee shall be placed before this

Court within a period of six weeks from the date of

pronouncement of this judgment. The Registrar Judicial is

directed to forward copy of this judgment to the Chief

Secretary, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir for

compliance.

c) The determination of responsibility for purposes of

imposition of costs shall be made strictly on the basis of the

findings recorded in the inquiry and only after affording

due opportunity of hearing to the officer(s) concerned. The

direction regarding personal costs shall operate subject to

such determination. It is, however, directed that the

WP(C) No. 2153/2025 Page 28 of 28

aforesaid amount of costs shall, in all circumstances and

irrespective of the ultimate findings of the inquiry, be

deposited before this Court within a period of four weeks

from the date of submission of the inquiry report.

65. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms

along with all the connected applications.

66. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, nothing further

survives for adjudication in the contempt petition. Accordingly,

the proceedings in the contempt petition, i.e., CCP(S) No.

382/2025 shall also stand closed.

(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)

Judge

Jammu:

05.03.2026

Michal Sharma/PS

Whether the order is speaking : Yes

Whether approved for reporting : Yes