Pawan Kumar Singh vs Ramgarh Cantonment Board and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of Memo dated 9th January, 2008 issued by the respondent No. 2. Chief Executive Officer, Ramgarh Cantonment Board, Ramgarh u/s 249 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 directing sealing of the premises described in the Schedule appended thereto, is wholly illegal, arbitrarily and in violation of principles of natural justice.

According to the petitioner, he purchased the land in question measuring an area of 1.14 acres from the recorded raiyat Shiv Prasad Pasawan through a registered deed of sale and got his name mutated before the Anchal Adhikari, Ramgarh and a correction slip was also issued. The notice has been issued on 16.3.2007 by the respondent No. 2 directing another person Vimal Kumar Dhudia to stop unauthorized construction. The notice was challenged in W.P.C. No. 2050 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of, according to the petitioner, on the undertaking of the respondents. Thereafter the petitioner was asked to show-cause and he appeared and filed a show-caused before the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the impugned notice has been issued, which according to the petitioner, is a non-speaking order.

Counsel for the petitioner, however, drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wherein it has been indicated that the impugned notice dated 9th January, 2008 as well as notice dated 7th April, 2008 have not been implemented and the Board has not taken any steps till date. As such the writ petition is pre-mature and not maintainable. It has also been stated in the subsequent paragraphs that the petitioner has to obtain sanction of plan under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, otherwise the construction would be illegal and liable to be sealed up. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the wake of such stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner may be allowed to approach the respondents for obtaining sanction of the construction and in case any cause of action arises, in respect of sealing of the premises in question, he may be allowed liberty to agitate the same.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of by allowing liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents for obtaining sanction of plan for construction, which may be considered in accordance with law without prejudice to any observation, which is being made hereinabove, within a period of three months from date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the petitioner has any fresh cause of action, he is at liberty to agitate the same. This writ petition stand disposed of.