Back
Shopkeepers Win Battle Against 'Unsafe' Tag: HC Slams JMC for Defying Court Order
In a strongly worded judgment, the has quashed an order by the Commissioner directing a fresh safety audit of a commercial building at 70 Exchange Road, Jammu. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal ruled that the JMC blatantly ignored a prior expert report from the engineering wing—mandated by the court itself—declaring the petitioners' shops structurally safe. The court not only set aside the controversial order but also ordered a high-level probe into officials' conduct and compensation to be recovered from their salaries.
The petitioners, seven long-time tenants including Anoop Uppal (70), Anu Radha (61), and others aged 39-72, run shops as their sole livelihood source in the ground-floor commercial portion of the building owned by respondents Naresh Kumar Gandotra and Shobha Gandotra.
From Landlord Complaint to Demolition Scare
The saga began in when the landlords approached JMC, alleging the building was unsafe to evict the tenants indirectly. PWD's initial report on declared it unsafe, prompting a JMC notice under , on , demanding demolition or repairs within 30 days.
Tenants challenged this in WP(C) No. 299/2025. On , the court ordered a fresh expert committee inspection by PWD engineers, supervised by the Additional District Magistrate, with all stakeholders present. The report cleared shops of petitioners 1-5 and 7 as safe; Shop No. 5 needed minor RCC slab replacement. On , the court quashed the demolition notice and directed JMC to reconsider strictly in light of this report after hearings.
Instead, on , the Commissioner ordered a private firm's audit, citing contradictory prior PWD reports—directly flouting the court's mandate. Tenants filed WP(C) No. 2153/2025; interim relief stayed the order on .
Tenants Cry Foul: ' Eviction Plot'
Petitioners, led by , argued the landlords engineered the initial unsafe report to bypass civil eviction suits. They stressed the court-supervised PWD report's finality, unchallenged by any party, and labeled the JMC order , , and violative of . Prolonged closures caused livelihood devastation under .
JMC (via ) claimed maintainability issues as a "second round" and justified the fresh audit post-hearing on , seeking explanation for PWD contradictions. Landlords echoed this, questioning the PWD report without formal challenge.
Court Draws Line: Experts Rule, Not Bureaucrats
Justice Nargal minced no words: administrative authorities must honor court-directed expert findings. Reopening settled issues via parallel audits overreaches jurisdiction and abdicates duty. Citing State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011), the court deferred to technical experts, noting courts lack structural engineering prowess.
Precedents like
reinforced that commissioners can't override expert committees sans reasons.
Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. UOI
(2012) underscored binding judicial orders. Doctrines of "" (
) and
"
"
(
) vitiated indirect eviction tactics.
The judgment highlighted tenants' two-year ordeal:
"It pains this Court to note that how these poor shopkeepers would have survived... shops in question were their sole source of livelihood."
Legal circles, as noted in LiveLaw reports, hailed it as a warning against officials undermining judicial discipline.
Key Observations
"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 petitioners are petty shopkeepers whose livelihood is directly and exclusively dependent upon the shops in question... arbitrary administrative action... amount[s] to a direct infringement of the petitioners’ fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under ."
"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."
"Once a competent expert body has rendered its findings pursuant to judicial directions, the administrative authority cannot sit in appeal over such findings."
Final Verdict: Restore Shops, Probe Misconduct, Pay Up
The impugned order stands quashed. Petitioners regain possession of safe shops immediately; landlords fix Shop No. 5 promptly. Chief Secretary must form an inquiry committee within two weeks to probe the initial unsafe report's origins—collusion? Mala fides?—reporting in six weeks. Delinquent PWD/JMC officers face Rs. 10,000 compensation each to the seven petitioners (total Rs. 70,000), deducted from salaries, not public funds. Contempt proceedings closed.
This ruling fortifies judicial supremacy, protects small traders' livelihoods, and signals zero tolerance for bureaucratic defiance. Future cases may cite it to enforce expert reports and personal accountability, deterring misuse of safety powers for private gains.
