HC quashes JMC Order, allows shopkeepers to reopen Exchange Road shops; orders probe

06/03/2026

JAMMU, Mar 5: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an order of the Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) directing a fresh safety audit of a building at Exchange Road and permitted shopkeepers to reopen their establishments after a court-supervised technical report declared the premises structurally safe.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed the directions while allowing a writ petition filed by Anoop Uppal and six other shopkeepers who had challenged Order No. 41 of 2025 dated July 26, 2025 issued by the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation.
The petitioners were represented by senior advocate Nirmal K. Kotwal along with advocate Rajveer Singh Isher. Advocate Mayank Gupta appeared for the Jammu Municipal Corporation, while advocate Piyush Gupta represented the private respondents. The Union Territory authorities were represented by Priyanka Bhat on behalf of Senior AAG Monika Kohli, while Ravinder Gupta, AAG, appeared for the PWD authorities.
The petitioners, who have been running their businesses for decades in shops located at 70, Exchange Road, Jammu, approached the High Court after the municipal authorities initiated action declaring the building unsafe and directed demolition or repairs.
Earlier, the High Court had directed the constitution of an expert engineering committee to conduct an on-spot inspection of the building and the shops. The committee, after carrying out the inspection in the presence of all stakeholders and under the supervision of the Additional District Magistrate, submitted a report stating that most of the shops occupied by the petitioners were structurally safe and fit for public use, with minor rectification required in one shop.
Despite the report, the Municipal Commissioner issued a fresh order directing a private empanelled firm to conduct another safety audit of the building. Challenging this decision, the petitioners argued that the action violated the earlier directions of the High Court.
The High Court held that once a competent expert body had examined the building pursuant to judicial directions and submitted its report, the municipal authorities could not ignore it and order a fresh inquiry. The court observed that the Commissioner had acted contrary to the earlier judgment of the court and attempted to reopen an issue that had already been settled.
The court also noted that the petitioners are small shopkeepers whose livelihood depends on the premises and that the prolonged closure of their shops had caused financial hardship and unnecessary litigation.
Setting aside the impugned order, the court directed that the petitioners be allowed to occupy and operate the shops declared structurally safe so that they may resume their business activities without further delay. In respect of one shop, the court directed the owners to carry out necessary repairs as recommended in the technical report.
In a significant direction, the court asked the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory to constitute an independent inquiry committee within two weeks to examine the circumstances that led to the issuance of the initial report declaring the building unsafe.
The court said that if the inquiry finds any officer of the Public Works Department or the Jammu Municipal Corporation responsible for issuing or facilitating the misleading report, such officer will be personally liable to pay compensation of Rs 10,000 each to the seven petitioners for loss of income, harassment and litigation expenses.
The High Court also directed that the inquiry report be submitted before the Registrar Judicial within the stipulated time. With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of and the connected contempt petition was also closed.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty