Jammu: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory to constitute an independent inquiry into the circumstances under which a commercial building at Exchange Road in Jammu was declared unsafe. The court also quashed an order issued by the Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) seeking a fresh safety audit of the structure.
In a detailed judgment, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal held that the order issued by the JMC Commissioner on July 26, 2025 directing a new safety audit through a private empanelled firm was contrary to earlier court directions and therefore unsustainable in law.
The court was hearing a petition filed by seven shopkeepers who have been running businesses for several decades in shops located on the ground floor of a building at 70 Exchange Road in Jammu. The petitioners submitted that the shops were their only source of livelihood and that the declaration of the building as unsafe had forced them to shut down their businesses, causing financial losses and distress.
It directed the Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir to constitute an independent inquiry committee within two weeks to examine the circumstances leading to the issuance of the initial “unsafe” report for the structure. The committee has been tasked with determining whether any collusion, procedural violation, undue influence or mala fide intent was involved in declaring the structure unsafe.
Upon completion of the inquiry, if any officer(s) of the Public Works Department (R&B), Jammu or the Jammu Municipal Corporation is (are) found responsible for issuing, facilitating or endorsing the misleading “unsafe” report, such officer(s) shall be personally liable to pay costs of ₹10,000 each to the seven petitioners towards compensation for loss of income, mental harassment and litigation expenses. The total amount of ₹70,000 shall be recovered from the salaries of the delinquent officers in equal proportion.
The court further clarified that if the inquiry reveals that the JMC Commissioner himself acted in derogation of the binding directions of the High Court or was instrumental in disregarding the findings of the court-constituted expert committee, then the entire liability of compensation shall be borne by the Commissioner in accordance with law.
The dispute arose after the building owners approached the Jammu Municipal Corporation in 2024 seeking declaration of the building as unsafe. Acting on the request, the engineering wing of the Public Works Department (R&B) initially issued a communication in November 2024 declaring the structure unsafe. Based on that communication, the municipal authorities issued demolition or repair notices in January 2025 and directed eviction of tenants occupying the shops.
Aggrieved by the action, the shopkeepers approached the High Court, which earlier directed the engineering wing of the Public Works Department to constitute a fresh expert committee to conduct an on-site inspection in the presence of all stakeholders, including owners, tenants and officials.
Pursuant to the court’s directions, a committee of engineers inspected the building and submitted a detailed report in May 2025. The report concluded that most of the shops occupied by the petitioners were structurally safe for public use, while one shop required minor rectification, including removal of a wooden plank roof and construction of a reinforced cement concrete (RCC) slab.
However, despite the findings of the committee, the JMC Commissioner issued another order in July 2025 directing a private empanelled firm to conduct a fresh safety audit.
The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that it effectively reopened an issue that had already been settled through a court-directed technical inspection.
Justice Nargal observed that the earlier court order had specifically directed the municipal authority to reconsider the matter strictly in light of the expert committee’s report. Instead of complying with those directions, the Commissioner ordered a fresh audit, which the court held was beyond his authority.
The court emphasized that determination of structural safety lies within the domain of technical experts and cannot be arbitrarily revisited by administrative authorities without valid reasons. It also noted that the prolonged closure of the shops had caused financial hardship and mental distress to the petitioners for nearly two years.
Setting aside the impugned order, the High Court directed that the petitioners be allowed to occupy and use the shops that have been declared structurally safe by the engineering wing and that possession be handed over to them forthwith so they may resume their business activities.
