Administrative authority cannot override court-mandated expert reports or reopen concluded issues to dispossess lawful tenants.

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’s report, dated 26.05.2025, declared the shops structurally safe (except for one needing minor repairs).

On 16.07.2025, the Court quashed an earlier demolition notice and directed the Commissioner, JMC, to reconsider the matter strictly in light of this PWD report.

Instead, the Commissioner issued Impugned Order No. 41 of 2025 on 26.07.2025, directing a fresh safety audit by a private empanelled firm, effectively ignoring the Court-mandated expert report.

The Court applied the principle that the determination of structural safety falls within the exclusive domain of technical experts, and courts/authorities should show deference to such opinions as held in *State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder*.

It utilized the doctrine of "Fraud on Power" and "Legal Malice" from *Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India* and *State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh*, which voids administrative orders exercised for an "alien" purpose or collateral motive.

The Court also relied on the principle from *Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India* that orders of constitutional courts must be obeyed in letter and spirit.

The doctrine that what cannot be done directly (eviction without due process) cannot be done indirectly through circuitous contrivances (*NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA*).

The Court reasoned that the Commissioner’s order was a flagrant violation of the specific judicial mandate dated 16.07.2025, which limited his scope of reconsideration "strictly" to the findings of the PWD report.

By ordering a third-party audit, the Commissioner abdicated his duty and attempted to reopen a settled technical issue adjudicated under judicial supervision.

The Court found that the PWD report, signed by a committee of engineers and a Magistrate, was authoritative and unchallenged.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the initial attempt to declare the building "unsafe" appeared to be a tactical device by landlords to dispossess tenants, bypassing the statutory civil process for ejectment.

Such action constitutes an abuse of administrative process and violates the petitioners’ fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21.

It held that the petitioners must be permitted to resume business in the shops declared safe, and Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 must repair Shop No. 5 as per the report.

The Court directed the Chief Secretary to constitute an independent inquiry committee to investigate the issuance of the initial "misleading" unsafe report.

If officers are found to have acted with mala fide intent or in violation of Court directions, they are personally liable to pay costs of ₹10,000 to each of the seven petitioners (total ₹70,000).

The contempt proceedings were closed following these directions.