Administrative authorities cannot order fresh safety audits to overreach binding judicial directions and expert engineering reports.

The petitioners are seven tenants running businesses at 70, Exchange Road, Jammu.

In 2024, the landlords (Respondents 6 & 7) applied to the Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) to declare the building unsafe.

Following a series of contradictory reports and a prior writ petition (WP(C) No. 299/2025), the High Court directed a fresh inspection by an expert PWD Engineering committee under the supervision of an Additional District Magistrate.

This committee submitted a report on 26.05.2025, declaring the shops structurally safe (except for minor repairs to Shop No. 5).

On 16.07.2025, the High Court quashed a previous demolition notice and directed the Commissioner, JMC, to reconsider the matter strictly in light of the 26.05.2025 report.

Instead, the Commissioner issued the impugned Order No. 41 of 2025 dated 26.07.2025, directing a fresh safety audit by a private empanelled firm.

The petitioners challenged this as an attempt to overreach judicial directions.

1. Whether the Commissioner, JMC, acted in violation of the Court’s mandate by ordering a fresh audit instead of deciding the matter based on the court-supervised expert report.

2. Whether the administrative action of declaring a building unsafe was used as a colorable exercise of power to bypass civil eviction laws.

3. Whether the closure of shops declared safe by experts violates the petitioners' right to livelihood under Article 21.

The Court applied the principle of judicial finality, holding that once a competent court issues a mandate for reconsideration "in light of a report," the authority’s discretion is circumscribed by that mandate.

It relied on *State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder*, emphasizing that courts and administrators must show deference to expert technical opinions in specialized fields like structural engineering.

The doctrine of "Fraud on Power" and "Colorable Exercise of Power" was invoked, citing *Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India* and *State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh*, which establish that using statutory power for an "alien purpose" (e.g., evicting tenants via safety notices instead of civil suits) vitiates the action.

Finally, it applied the maxim *quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur at omne per quod devenitur ad illud*, asserting that what cannot be done directly (unlawful eviction) cannot be done indirectly.

The Court reasoned that the Commissioner acted as a "super authority" by brushing aside the PWD Engineering Wing’s report, which had been prepared under judicial supervision and remained unchallenged.

Reopening a settled technical issue by appointing a private firm was deemed an "abdication of duty" and a contemptuous attempt to overreach the High Court’s judgment dated 16.07.2025.

The Court observed that the initial "unsafe" report appeared to be a tactical device engineered by the landlords to oust lawful tenants without following the civil process for ejectment.

Since the expert committee—comprising the PWD Engineering Wing and a Magistrate—expressly found the shops safe, the Commissioner’s refusal to allow shops to reopen was disproportionate and an abuse of administrative process.

It held that the PWD report of 26.05.2025 continues to hold the field.

The Court directed: (i) Immediate restoration of possession to the petitioners to resume business in safe shops; (ii) Landlords to repair Shop No. 5 as recommended; and (iii) The Chief Secretary to constitute an inquiry into the issuance of the initial "unsafe" report.

If found guilty of collusion or negligence, the responsible officers are liable to pay a personal cost of ₹10,000 to each of the seven petitioners (total ₹70,000), to be recovered from their salaries.

The writ petition was disposed of, and the CCP(S) No. 382/2025 was closed.