Anoop Uppal And Ors vs Jammu Municipal Corporation And Anr on 2 April, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Anoop Uppal And Ors vs Jammu Municipal Corporation And Anr on 2 April, 2025

                                                                          S. No. 21

         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU

Case:-       WP(C) No. 299/2025
             CAV No. 131/2025

Anoop Uppal and Ors.                                                  .....Petitioner(s)

                      Through: Mr. K. Nirmal Kotwal, Advocate

            Vs
Jammu Municipal Corporation and Anr.                               ..... Respondent(s)

                      Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R- 4 & 5
                               Mr. Rajnish Raina, Advocate for R-1
                               Mr. Gagan Basotra Sr. Advocate with
                               Mr. Abdul Rauf Lone, Advocate for R- 6 & 7

Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE

                                      ORDER

(02.04.2025)

01. While the matter was being argued, learned counsel for respondent no. 1

has drawn the attention of this Court to the representation filed by the petitioners

before Municipal Commissioner, Jammu whereby a request has been made for

appointment of committee/team for the inspection of shops regarding structural

safety situated at H.No. 70 Exchange Road, Jammu. From a bare perusal of the

aforesaid representation, it has come to fore that the petitioners have requested

the Municipal Commissioner to constitute an expert committee and in alternate

sought direction against the engineering wing to conduct an on-site inspection of

the shops without any further delay.

02. It has also been prayed that the findings of the inspection should be

documented and a request has been made that the appropriate action be taken in

accordance with law to ensure the safety of the occupants and the general public.

Since the petitioners were of the view that the building is structurally safe and,

accordingly, with a view to ensure a transparent and fair assessment, a request
2 WP(C) No. 299/2025

through the medium of the aforesaid representation has been made that the

inspection be carried out in presence of the building owner, the tenants and the

representatives from PWD (R&B) and by allowing all the concerned parties to

be informed of the inspection process.

03. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the needful

has not been done by the respondents with regard to the procedure envisaged

under the Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules framed thereunder, whereby

it was incumbent on part of the Municipal Corporation to have associated the

petitioner while conducting any such inspection or to take a decision to demolish

or secure the repair of the building through the medium of the notice dated

07.01.2025 issued under Section 258(2) of the Jammu Municipal Corporation

Act, 2000, which is impugned in the present petition.

04. It is the specific case of the petitioners that no notice whatsoever has been

issued to the petitioners while taking the aforesaid decision and a grave

prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and it has been alleged that the

decision taken by the Municipal Corporation through the medium of the

aforesaid notice smacks foul play. The record reveals that this Court on the very

first day of hearing vide order dated 10.02.2025 has directed learned counsel for

the respondent no. 1 to produce the original record, which led to the passing of

the order impugned dated 07.01.2025 on the basis of which decision has been

taken to demolish the building, which has been declared as unsafe and till the

said record was produced/examined by this Court, with a view to do complete

justice to both the parties, this Court by virtue of an interim measure has

directed the official respondents not to proceed further on the basis of the

aforesaid notice to carry such demolition of the so called unsafe building, which
3 WP(C) No. 299/2025

order continuous to be operative as on date. The interim measure was subject to

filing an undertaking by each and every petitioner separately that they will not

carry any business in the aforesaid shops, as the building has already been

declared unsafe.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said undertaking has

already been filed before the Registrar Judicial of this Court and subject to filing

of the aforesaid undertaking, respondents have not carried the demolition till

date and the restraining order continues to be operative as on today, which is

harshly working against the interest of the petitioners. The record further reveals

that on the strength of restraining order, the petitioners have not been allowed to

run their shops, which is the only source of income and livelihood for them.

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
4 WP(C) No. 299/2025

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 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.

09. Copy of this order be forwarded to the learned counsel for respondent nos.

1, 4 and 5 under the seal and signature of Bench Secretary of this Court.

10. List on 15.04.2025, higher up.

(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE

JAMMU
02.04.2025
Riya