Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Obscene Posts on WhatsApp – Insult to Modesty of Woman – Sections 509 and 201 IPC, Section 67 IT Act, Section 120(o) Kerala Police Act – The petitioner/accused, a former hotel employee, posted sexually coloured obscene messages targeting CW1 (Human Resources Manager) in a WhatsApp group of present and past employees of the hotel, referring to her private parts and portraying her as a lady of loose morals – He thereafter deleted the posts from his mobile phone to destroy evidence – Held: Prima facie offences under Sections 509 and 201 IPC, Section 67 of the IT Act, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act are made out – Petition devoid of merit – Dismissed [Paras 2, 5, 6].

Section 509 IPC – Insult to Modesty – WhatsApp Group – Victim Not a Member – Irrelevance – The petitioner contended that Section 509 IPC is not attracted as CW1 was not a member of the WhatsApp group where the objectionable posts were made – Held: Since the posts were published in a group of present and past colleagues of CW1, it was obvious that the act was done with the intention to insult her modesty, as she would inevitably come to know of the posts – Mere non-membership of the victim in the WhatsApp group does not exclude applicability of Section 509 IPC [Para 5].

Destruction of Evidence – Section 201 IPC – Deletion of Posts from Mobile Phone – The petitioner deleted the objectionable posts from his mobile phone after publishing them, with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence – Held: Such deliberate deletion constitutes the offence under Section 201 IPC – Allegations in the final report and accompanying records prima facie establish the offence [Para 6].

Obscenity – Section 67 IT Act – Electronic Media – Trial Court's Role – The act of making obscene posts through electronic media with intent to insult CW1's modesty prima facie attracts Section 67 of the IT Act – Whether the comments constitute obscenity is a question of fact to be decided by the Trial Court after recording evidence – High Court cannot adjudicate the same in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Para 6].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 471/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Maradu, to continue.

Succession Law – Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Wills Executed Abroad – Two Wills dated 05.04.1999 and 17.04.1999 executed by Dr. M. Leela Rama Krishna Prasad (testator), a doctor settled in the USA, in favour of a private charitable trust were challenged as unproved and surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Trial Court disbelieved the Wills and granted a half share to the testator's widow Smt. Padmaja – On appeal, Division Bench found that D.W.4 (attending physician and attestor), an independent and credible witness of impeccable standing, had proved the execution of the Will dated 17.04.1999, satisfying the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act – Held: The Will of 17.04.1999 is proved and valid – Properties of Dr. Prasad in India to devolve in accordance with the said Will [Paras 23–66].

Proof of Will – Testamentary Capacity – Sound and Disposing Mind – Testator Hospitalised – The testator executed the Will of 05.04.1999 in the afternoon at D.W.4's residence, prior to his hospitalisation in the evening on account of chest pain – Medical records (Ex.A7) showed the testator was actively participating in decisions about his treatment and was improving; doctors had contemplated discharge on 18.04.1999 – Evidence of P.W.2 (forensic specialist) opining that heavy sedation impaired the testator's mental capacity was insufficient to rebut the medical records – Held: Testator was in a sound and disposing mind at the time of executing both Wills [Paras 37–39].

Proof of Will – Custody of Will – Attestation by Indian Consulate in San Francisco – Affidavit of Widow Acknowledging Will – Ambiguity in chain of custody and attestation by the Indian Consulate in San Francisco (instead of Atlanta) noted as suspicious circumstances – However, Smt. Padmaja's own affidavit dated 31.01.2000 (Ex.B6) acknowledged execution of the Will of 17.04.1999 and its attestation by the Consulate – Widow's legal notice of 11.01.2002 sought copies of Wills rather than denying their existence – Held: Taking an overall view, the Wills were executed by Dr. Prasad and reflect his wishes; suspicious circumstances do not warrant rejection [Paras 40–51, 66].

Proof of Will – Non-Examination of Second Attesting Witness – Section 68 Evidence Act – Will of 17.04.1999 attested by D.W.4 and Dr. Amaraneni Swarajya – Only D.W.4 examined – Held: Section 68 requirements are satisfied upon examination of at least one attesting witness alive, subject to process of Court, and capable of giving evidence – Non-examination of K.R.K. Murthy (who was an attesting witness to the Will of 05.04.1999) not fatal, as the Will of 05.04.1999 was superseded by the Will of 17.04.1999 [Paras 34–35].

Proof of Will – Foreign Will – Probate in Foreign Country – Section 213 and 228, Indian Succession Act – Contention that a Will executed in USA must first be probated in an American court before it can be produced in India – Held: Section 228 operates in a situation where a Will already probated abroad cannot be produced in original, and permits letters of administration on certified copy – It does not prohibit production of a Will executed outside India before an Indian court without foreign probate – Courts in Andhra Pradesh do not have jurisdiction to grant probate; hence, Wills executed by Hindus for properties in Andhra Pradesh can always be proved in civil proceedings without probate [Paras 55–59].

Proof of Will – Hague Convention – Conflict of Laws – Form of Testamentary Dispositions – Will executed in USA, relating to immoveable properties in India – Held: Under the Convention on the Conflict of Laws relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions (1961), a testamentary disposition is valid as to form if it complies with the law of the place where the immoveable properties are situated – Will of 17.04.1999 being in conformity with Indian law is valid; Convention does not bar its production before an Indian court [Paras 59–61].

Lok Adalat – Challenge by Writ Petition – Jurisdiction – Fraud – Awards obtained by Lok Adalat at Eluru in O.S.Nos.445 and 446 of 2019 directed Sri Hemanth Kumar to execute sale deeds in favour of third parties in respect of properties belonging to the estate of Dr. Prasad – Sri Hemanth Kumar had suppressed the pendency of the appeal, the preliminary decree in O.S.No.69 of 2002, and the fact that he had no individual title over the property – Settlement was entered into in individual capacity, not as power of attorney holder – Held: Such suppression of material facts and deliberate misleading of the Lok Adalat amounts to fraud vitiating the awards – Awards set aside [Paras 71–73, 101–103].

Lok Adalat – Jurisdiction of Court – Section 17 CPC – Cause of Action – Properties Situated in Different Districts – Suits filed in Eluru in relation to properties situated both in West Godavari District and Vijayawada Rural Mandal – Cause of action pleaded pertained only to interference over West Godavari property – No cause of action pleaded in relation to Vijayawada properties – Held: Court in Eluru had no jurisdiction over properties in Vijayawada Rural Mandal; Lok Adalat constituted for Eluru court consequently lacked jurisdiction to pass awards in relation to Vijayawada properties [Paras 94–99].

Public Charitable Trust – Existence – Registration – Endowments Act – Trust created by Will of 17.04.1999 for benefit of mother of testator and thereafter for education and health of deserving persons – Trust never registered with Endowments Department – Held: Under Section 1(3) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, all public charitable institutions whether registered or not fall within the Act – Absence of registration does not prevent trust from coming into existence – Trust is a Public Charitable Trust and has come into existence [Paras 76–83].

Public Trust – Joinder of Trustees – Juristic Entity – Section 14 and 29, Endowments Act – Whether all trustees must join in all proceedings – Held: Under Section 14 of the Endowments Act, trust property vests in the institution, conferring juristic personality – Under Section 29(3)(b)(iii), the Executive Officer shall sue or be sued in name of the institution – In absence of an Executive Officer, Trustee can file proceedings – Writ Petitions filed by Trustee on behalf of Trust held maintainable [Paras 84–88].

Sale Deeds – Writ Petition – Registration Act – Sections 81 and 82 – Scope of Enquiry – Enquiry initiated under Section 81 and 82 of the Registration Act into deeds of sale (Doc. Nos. 3567 and 3568 of 2023) executed after death of principal – Held: Sections 81 and 82 do not independently empower cancellation of registered documents – Enquiry may proceed to ascertain infractions and for punitive purposes – Declaration of nullity of a document is within exclusive domain of civil court – Petitioners relegated to O.S.No.1692 of 2023 already filed for cancellation of sale deeds [Paras 89–92, 105–107].

Remand – Implead Petitioners – Rights of Agreement Holders – Agreements of sale executed by power of attorney holder of Dr. Prasad in favour of third parties prior to testator's death – Question of whether power of attorney coupled with interest survived death of principal left open – Held: Rights of implead petitioners over lands under agreements of sale and their possession to be adjudicated afresh by trial court on remand – Scope of enquiry restricted to this aspect only; validity of Will not to be reopened [Paras 116–128].

Decision: AS Nos.645 of 2013 and 707 of 2014 – Will of 17.04.1999 held proved and valid – Properties of Dr. Prasad to devolve in accordance with said Will – Implead petitioners impleaded as respondents for limited purpose – Matters remanded to trial court for determining rights of implead petitioners over claimed lands – W.P. Nos. 3325 & 3807 of 2020 and 15383, 15403 of 2021 allowed; Lok Adalat Awards dated 21.01.2020 set aside – W.P. No. 13966 of 2023 dismissed; Trust at liberty to pursue O.S. No. 1692 of 2023 – W.P. No. 16510 of 2023 disposed of with direction that Section 81/82 enquiry may proceed within its limited scope – C.C. No. 5225 of 2023 closed.

Maintenance – Section 488 CrPC – Mutual Consent Separation – Bar under Section 488(5) – Parties married in 1990 separated by compromise dated 28.08.1995 upon receipt of ₹10,000/- as full and final settlement – Wife withdrew earlier maintenance and bigamy proceedings – Subsequently filed fresh maintenance petition in 2008 without disclosing earlier proceedings – Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed maintenance at ₹2,000/- per month – Revisional Court set aside the same holding parties were living separately by mutual consent – Held: Revisional Court's finding legally sustainable; petitioner disentitled to maintenance under Section 488(5) CrPC [Paras 9, 29–30].

Customary Divorce – Proof – Custom must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved – Execution of settlement deed (farakhtnama) alone cannot dissolve a Hindu marriage in absence of a proved custom or decree of divorce from competent court – Both courts below concurrently held customary divorce not proved – Concurrent finding upheld – Marriage not lawfully dissolved but parties held to be living separately by mutual consent [Paras 12, 20].

Admissions – Estoppel by Conduct – Petitioner withdrew earlier proceedings and accepted ₹10,000/- as full and final settlement in 1995 – In subsequent child maintenance proceedings, described herself as divorced – Did not seek restitution of conjugal rights for over a decade – Consistent admissions in judicial proceedings constitute substantive evidence and operate by way of estoppel – Petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate by asserting desertion after admitting divorce [Paras 16, 23].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 488 CrPC – Scope – Maintenance proceedings are summary and preventive in nature – Magistrate not required to adjudicate intricate questions of matrimonial law – Revisional court cannot reassess evidence and substitute findings in place of Magistrate's positive findings of fact – Interference permissible only where finding is perverse or manifestly illegal – Sessions Court's finding based on documentary record and admissions not characterised as perverse [Paras 17–18, 29].

Mutual Separation Agreement – Effect on Maintenance – Agreement per se does not dissolve a statutory marriage unless backed by a decree or proved custom – However, such agreement is relevant to determine whether parties are residing separately by mutual consent – If parties have voluntarily agreed to live apart and agreement has been acted upon, bar under Section 488(5) CrPC operates – Petitioner's long-standing conduct, admissions and acquiescence demonstrate residence separately by mutual consent [Paras 21–28].

Substantial Justice – One-Time Settlement – Despite disentitlement to maintenance, petitioner has no independent source of income and is dependent on her son – Civil status remains that of legally wedded wife as marriage not lawfully dissolved – Private agreement cannot override statutory entitlement meant to prevent destitution – Respondent had consented to pay ₹2.50 lakhs in Lok Adalat settlement which failed to materialise – Court directs respondent to pay ₹2.50 lakhs as one-time settlement within six months, failing which interest at 6% per annum to apply – Amount of ₹1,40,091/- lying in FDR with Registry to be released in favour of petitioner [Paras 32–34].

Decision: CRM(M) No. 444/2020 dismissed – Revisional Court's order upheld – Respondent directed to pay ₹2.50 lakhs as one-time settlement within six months from receipt of certified copy of order – Amount in FDR to be released to petitioner – CRM(M) No. 279/2021 dismissed as infructuous.

Hindu Succession – Female Intestate – Reversion to Husband's Heirs – Section 15(2)(b) – Compromise Decree – Registration – Adoption – RSA 3913 of 2003 Allowed, RSA 1227 of 2010 Dismissed – Property inherited by a widow from her husband devolves upon heirs of the husband in absence of issue – Kamla Devi, admittedly unrelated and not legally adopted, held not entitled to property – Decree in her favour being a transfer to a stranger without pre-existing right was void for want of registration – Plaintiff, as surviving brother of the deceased husband Multan Singh, held entitled under Section 15(2)(b) – In contrast, decree in favour of Chand Singh, real nephew of Smt. Sona Devi having a possible succession claim, construed as a bona fide family settlement not requiring compulsory registration – RSA 3913 of 2003 allowed; RSA 1227 of 2010 dismissed [Paras 11–25].

Adoption – Hindu Law – Proof Required – No Legal Status Without Ceremony – Admission of Defendant Fatal – Adoption under Hindu law requires strict compliance with mandatory requirements including ceremony of giving and taking – Mere upbringing or treatment as daughter, or description as daughter in marriage invitation card, insufficient to confer legal status of adopted child – Defendant admitted no adoption ceremony took place – Held: Plea of adoption wholly untenable [Para 14].

Compromise Decree – Registration – Fresh Rights in Immovable Property – Stranger vs. Family Member – Distinction – Decree creating fresh rights in immovable property in favour of a person with no antecedent or pre-existing right requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Exception for family settlements under Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation applies only to persons having antecedent title or even a possible claim – Unregistered decree in favour of a stranger conveys no valid title – Decree in favour of a blood relative with possible succession claim falls within family settlement exception and is valid without registration [Paras 15–23].

Decision: RSA No. 3913 of 2003 – Allowed – Judgments and decrees of Courts below set aside – Suit of plaintiff decreed – Plaintiff held entitled to one-half share in total holding – RSA No. 1227 of 2010 – Dismissed – Decree in favour of Chand Singh upheld.

Company Law – Interim Relief – Administration Suit – Plaintiff sought directions to be made joint signatory to bank accounts, deposit of income from estate properties, and restoration of monies allegedly withdrawn from estate – Reliance placed on Commissioner’s Report indicating high cash withdrawals and financial irregularities in company associated with deceased – Held: Commissioner’s report cannot be treated as conclusive evidence at interlocutory stage and defendants must be given opportunity to challenge and test the report through cross-examination and evidence – Interim reliefs refused as they would amount to granting substantially final relief without trial [Paras 24–25, 31].

Company Law – Jurisdiction – Civil Court vis-à-vis NCLT – Plaintiff raised grievances regarding financial management and alleged dissipation of assets of company in which deceased held substantial shareholding – Held: Issues relating to corporate governance, oppression, mismanagement, or functioning of company fall within exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT – Civil court in administration suit cannot grant reliefs interfering with management of company [Paras 29].

Evidence – Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Report of court-appointed commissioner appointed by consent of parties – Held: Mere consent to appointment of commissioner does not imply acceptance of findings as final – Commissioner’s report is not substantive evidence and can be challenged by parties through cross-examination and independent evidence [Paras 24–25].

Corporate Governance – Acquiescence – Plaintiff, a director of the company, had signed financial statements for multiple years after demise of deceased reflecting financial transactions and shareholding structure – Held: Plaintiff cannot prima facie feign ignorance of financial affairs or challenge shareholding structure at interlocutory stage after several years – conduct indicates acquiescence and delay [Paras 26–27].

Interim Relief – Mandatory Directions – Prayer to restore allegedly withdrawn monies and deposit revenues of estate in court – Held: Reliefs are substantially mandatory and near-final in nature – In administration suits such directions ordinarily follow only after determination of rights and accounting – Grant of such relief at interim stage impermissible [Paras 30–31].

Administration of Estate – Interim Financial Arrangement – Court noted earlier ad-interim order directing defendants to pay plaintiff ₹3,00,000 per month – Held: Existing arrangement sufficiently safeguards plaintiff’s financial interests pending suit – No irreparable injury shown as alleged monetary loss can be compensated after accounts are taken [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Interim Application rejected insofar as prayer clauses (c), (f) and (g) are concerned – Statement of defendants recorded that they shall not create third-party rights in respect of estate assets pending suit – Existing arrangement directing payment of ₹3,00,000 per month to plaintiff to continue – Liberty granted to plaintiff to seek enhancement of amount if circumstances so warrant – No order as to costs.

Land Acquisition – Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Applicability – Petitioners contended that though award was passed in 2002 and compensation paid, they continued in possession of the land for more than 12 years and therefore acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Respondents established that possession had been taken in 2005 through proceedings of Mandal Revenue Officer and mutation was effected in revenue records – Held: Once possession is taken and compensation tendered, acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) – Petitioners cannot claim fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act [Paras 20-27].

Effect of Constitution Bench Decision – Section 24(2) Interpretation – Petitioners relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki to argue lapse of acquisition – Court held that the said decision has been expressly overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal – Deemed lapse occurs only where both conditions are satisfied, namely possession not taken and compensation not paid – Therefore reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation is misplaced [Paras 24-27].

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Land in State – Effect of Possession and Compensation – After passing of award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land vests absolutely in the State – Even if landowners subsequently remain in physical occupation, such possession is illegal and unauthorized and does not confer any legal right to reclaim the land [Paras 22, 28-30].

Encroachment on Acquired Land – No Right to Claim Restoration – Petitioners allegedly re-entered the buffer zone of the mining area years after acquisition and compensation – Such occupation amounts to encroachment and cannot create any enforceable right to retain possession or demand reacquisition of land [Paras 22, 30].

Land Acquisition – Section 24(2) – No Revival of Concluded Proceedings – Section 24 of the 2013 Act does not revive stale or concluded acquisition proceedings and cannot be invoked to reopen acquisitions that were completed long before the commencement of the 2013 Act [Paras 26-27].

Decision:

Batch of writ petitions dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to claim lapse of acquisition or protection of possession – Acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 held valid – Eviction action by authorities upheld – No order as to costs.

Mining Law – Quarry Lease – Validity of Lease – Earlier Lease Held Invalid – Claim for Renewal/Extension – Quarry lease granted in favour of partner of petitioner firm (Vivek Exports) pursuant to Government Order relaxing Rule 3A of KMMC Rules – Said Government Order subsequently quashed by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Earlier writ proceedings had already held that renewal of lease granted in favour of Vivek Exports was implicitly invalid and not a subsisting valid lease – Said finding attained finality after dismissal of appeal before Supreme Court – Held: Petitioner cannot claim extension or statutory renewal under amended rules on the basis of an invalid lease – Endorsement rejecting request for extension justified [Paras 13-20].

Mining Lease – Statutory Extension under KMMC (Amendment) Rules – Applicability – Petitioner sought extension of quarry lease up to 30 years under Rule 8A(2) of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 and further relied on KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023 providing deemed lease period of 50 years – Court held that such statutory extension presupposes existence of a valid subsisting lease – Since the lease itself was declared invalid by earlier judicial orders that attained finality, benefit of statutory extension cannot be invoked [Paras 16-20].

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Laches – Challenge after Seven Years – Petitioner challenged endorsement rejecting its claim after nearly seven years – Explanation offered regarding illness and misunderstanding regarding subsisting lease was unsupported by material – Held: Inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation is a sufficient ground to reject writ petition in addition to lack of merits [Paras 21-22].

Quarry Lease Application – Pending Application – Effect of Amendments to KMMC Rules – Application for quarry lease filed by KUM Internationals in 2008 was rejected on ground that applied area overlapped with existing lease – After earlier proceedings held the existing lease invalid and directed reconsideration, authorities rejected application citing Rule 8B of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 and absence of NOCs from other departments – Held: Since application had been pending since 2010 and previous court orders directed consideration, rejection on ground that NOCs were not received prior to 12.08.2016 was unjustified – Responsibility to obtain NOCs primarily lies with authorities [Paras 28-33].

Mining Law – Responsibility for Obtaining NOCs – Role of Authorities – Under Rule 8(5) of the KMMC Rules (prior to later amendment), the duty to seek NOCs from other departments rested on the Senior Geologist/competent authority – Applicant could only facilitate the process – Authorities cannot reject application solely for non-receipt of NOCs when such process was within their control [Paras 32-34].

Effect of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023 – Amendment revived eligibility of applications filed prior to the 2016 Rules – Considering the earlier judicial directions and the amendment restoring eligibility, application of KUM for quarry lease over notified 5 acres deserved consideration and grant [Paras 30-31].

Decision:

Writ Petition No.2922/2023 (filed by Vivek Exports) dismissed – Claim for extension/renewal of quarry lease rejected.

Writ Petition No.10370/2022 (filed by KUM Internationals) allowed – Endorsement dated 10.12.2020 rejecting application quashed – Authorities directed to issue necessary notification and execute quarry lease deed in favour of KUM for the notified area within four weeks.

Education Law – Unfair Means in Examination – Possession of Mobile Phone – CBSE Guidelines – The respondent student appearing for Class XII examination was found carrying a mobile phone inside the examination hall – Though no incriminating material relating to the examination was found and the phone was not used for copying, the CBSE Unfair Means Committee placed the case under Category-3 and imposed penalty of cancellation of current as well as next year’s examination in all subjects – Single Judge set aside the penalty relying on parity with earlier decision and extended benefit of doubt – Division Bench held that after the 139th Governing Body Meeting dated 24.06.2024, possession of a mobile phone itself has been specifically included in Category-3 attracting stringent penalty – Courts cannot dilute or read down guidelines framed and ratified by an expert body in academic matters – Held: Mere non-use of the phone is irrelevant once possession inside the examination centre is established – Single Judge’s order unsustainable [Paras 24-31].

Judicial Review – Academic/Expert Decisions – Scope of Interference – Guidelines regarding Unfair Means were framed after deliberation by the Examination Committee and ratified by the CBSE Governing Body – The categorisation placing possession of mobile phones in Category-3 with severe penalty was a conscious policy decision to prevent leakage of question papers and misuse of electronic devices – Held: Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot substitute their opinion for that of an expert body or dilute such policy unless manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional [Paras 24-31].

Parity with Earlier Judgments – Applicability – Single Judge relied on decision in *Shuchi Mishra* where penalty for possession of mobile phone was set aside – Division Bench held that the said case arose prior to issuance of revised UFM guidelines and categorisation introduced later – Hence, the doctrine of parity was inapplicable to the present case governed by the amended rules [Paras 22-23].

Unfair Means Committee – Findings – The committee recorded that the student admitted possession of the mobile phone though it was not used for copying – Evidence included mobile phone, statements of invigilator, observer and student – Based on the revised guidelines, the competent authority imposed Category-3 penalty – Held: Action of CBSE was in accordance with the governing guidelines and cannot be interfered with merely on sympathetic considerations [Paras 19, 26-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the Single Judge dated 23.08.2025 in W.P. No.16511/2025 set aside – Penalty imposed by CBSE cancelling the current as well as next year’s examination in all subjects upheld – All pending applications disposed of.

Municipal Law – Building Safety – Judicial Directions – Commissioner's Order Quashed – Section 258(2) of Jammu Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 – Tenants running shops for decades at 70, Exchange Road, Jammu, were faced with an unsafe building declaration obtained allegedly at the landlord's behest to forcibly evict them – Court-supervised expert committee of PWD (R&B) Engineering Wing declared shops structurally safe vide report dated 26.05.2025 – This Court vide judgment dated 16.07.2025 in WP(C) No. 299/2025 directed the Commissioner to reconsider "strictly in the light of the report" – Commissioner instead issued impugned order No. 41/2025 directing a fresh safety audit through a private empanelled firm – Held: "The order passed by the Commissioner is in flagrant violation of the judgment passed by this Court" and "is palpably bad in the eyes of law, being arbitrary and contrary to the binding directions" – Order quashed [Paras 2–61].

Administrative Authority – Bound by Expert Report – Cannot Reopen Concluded Issues – "Once a competent court issues a direction requiring reconsideration strictly in light of a specified report, the scope of such reconsideration stands circumscribed by the judicial mandate itself" – Authority must either accept expert findings or record "cogent, legally sustainable and reasoned grounds for differing" – "Once a Court-appointed inquiry committee has concluded its inquiry, the administrative authorities are denuded of any power to constitute another committee or order a parallel inquiry on the same issue" – Held: Commissioner's referral to a fresh private agency amounted to "abdication of duty" and "excess of jurisdiction" [Paras 35–36, 46].

Fraud on Power – Colourable Exercise – Unsafe Declaration as Tool for Illegal Eviction – The Court noted prima facie circumstances suggesting that the initial unsafe report "may have been engineered at the instance or under the influence of the landlord, with an oblique motive to oust the lawful tenants by bypassing the legally prescribed civil process for ejectment" – Held: "The process of declaring a building unsafe cannot be misused as a tool to dispossess tenants" – "What cannot be achieved directly through legal means cannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly by invoking safety concerns contrary to an authoritative technical report" – Reliance placed on Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872 and State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh, 1980 AIR SC 319 [Paras 50–60].

Right to Livelihood – Article 21 – Prolonged Shop Closure Constitutionally Impermissible – Petitioners are "petty shopkeepers whose livelihood is directly and exclusively dependent upon the shops in question" – "It pains this Court to note that how these poor shopkeepers would have survived during the intervening period when the shops in question were their sole source of livelihood" – Held: Administrative action causing closure of shops declared safe by a court-constituted committee is "disproportionate" and "constitutionally impermissible" as it amounts to "a direct infringement of the petitioners' fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21" [Paras 45, 53–54].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order No. 41/2025 dated 26.07.2025 quashed – Petitioners directed to be permitted forthwith to use and occupy the shops declared structurally safe – Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 directed to carry out rectification of Shop No. 5 expeditiously – Chief Secretary, UT of Jammu & Kashmir, directed to constitute an independent inquiry committee within two weeks to examine circumstances leading to the initial unsafe report – If any officer found responsible, personal costs of Rs. 10,000/- to each petitioner (totalling Rs. 70,000/-) recoverable from salary – Contempt petition CCP(S) No. 382/2025 stands closed.