AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition
praying for following relief :
(i) This Hon''ble Court may kindly set aside the impugned order dated 2/11/2016 passed by Dy. Secretary Town and Country Planning. (ii) This Hon''ble Court may be pleased to
cancel the permission granted for a high rise building near the Army establishment being a
security risk and against the public interest.
(iii) This Hon''ble Court may kindly direct the respondent No.6 to demolish and remove the construction in question.
(iv) The Hon''ble Court further pleased to pass any such order as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.
(v) Any other relief this Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted to the petitioners.
(vi) Cost be awarded to the petitioner."
The petitioners have submitted that the local authorities
have granted permission to respondent No.6 for constructing
high rise building in the vicinity of Grenadiers Regiment
Centre (G.R.C.). It is submitted that due to the said high rise
building, there is a security threat in the premises of the
G.R.C. On Raju Yadav had filed a PIL challenging the
permission granted to respondent No.6 for raising the said
construction. The said writ petition was dismissed.
Thereafter as the petitioners were not party to the said writ
petition, the petitioners have, therefore, filed a review petition
before this Court. The review petition was disposed of with a
liberty to the petitioner to approach the local authorities.
Accordingly, the petitioners had approached to the local
authorities vide representation dated 08/05/2016 and
13/06/2015. As the representations were pending
consideration, the petitioners, therefore, filed Writ Petition
No.18630/2016. The said writ petition was disposed of vide
order dated 04/11/2015 with a liberty to the petitioners to file
fresh representation before the Chief Secretary, Bhopal
within a period of two weeks and, in turn, the representation
was required to be decided within a period of two months
from the date of filing of the representation. The petitioners,
accordingly, submitted a representation on 14/11/2015. As
the representation was not decided, the petitioners had again
approached to this Court by filing Writ Petition
No.14120/2016. This Court vide order dated 14/2/2017 was
permitted the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition with
liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the order dated
2/11/2016. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated
2/11/2016 the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the Dy.
Secretary in his order at paragraph-19.10 has stated that the
Army Authorities do not have any objection for G+3 floor.
He further stated that as per Section 3(1) of the Works of
Defence Act, 1903, a notification is required to prevent any
construction from coming up on any particular land within a
period of three months. On the basis of the said
observations, the Dy. Secretary granted permission to
respondent No.6 to construct the building of G+3 floors and
restrained the builder for a period of three months from
proceeding with additional floors and directed the petitioners
to have a notification issued under Section 3 of the Works of
Defence Act, 1903. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that while passing the said order, the authority
has failed to consider that there is a security threat due to the
said construction. She further submits that Grenadiers
Regiment Centre is a category B training institute which
trains over 1500 recruits every year in various fields to
include physical training, drill, games, lectures and carrying
out of tactical manuvorous including specialised training, all
of which entails gathering of troops in large numbers. Such
gathering may be targeted by Anti National Element and
terrorists who from the safe heights of the proposed adjoining
high rise building will carry out constant monitoring and
surveillance of such soft targets with an aim to carry out
collateral and large scale destruction by aimed /standoff
attacks at the installation. She further submits that the
permission of construction which is granted to respondent
No.6 is contrary to Section 299-A of the Municipal
Corporation Act and in the light of the fact that security of the
Centre amounts to public interest, the competent authority
should have exercised its powers under Section 299-A of the
Municipal Corporation Act by denying the permission to
respondent No.6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned
order dated 2/11/2016 may be quashed and the permission
which is granted to respondent No.6 for raising high rise
building under the Army establishment may also be quashed.
On the other hand, learned senior counsel for
respondent No.6, on caveat, argues that the said construction
has been raised by respondent No.6 after obtaining necessary
permission from all the authorities. He further submits that
the petitioners have failed to get a notification issued under
the Works of Defence Act, 1903. Learned senior counsel
further submits that the Government of India, Ministry of
Defence, had issued a guidelines for issuance of no objection
certificate for building construction etc on 21 st October, 2016.
Clause-A of the said circular provides that security restriction
in respect of the defence establishment/installations located at
193 stations as listed in Part A of Annexure to this circular
shall apply upto 10 meters from the outer wall of such
defence establishments/installations to maintain clear line of
sight for effective surveillance. Thus, as per the said clause,
restrictions regarding construction is only upto 10 meters
from the outer wall of such defence establishment. Jabalpur
city falls under Part-A of the Annexure. On the basis of the
said circular, learned senior counsel for respondent No.6
submits that the construction which is raised by respondent
No.6 is beyond 10 meters from the outer wall of such defence
establishment. In the light of the aforesaid, he submits that
the writ petition may be dismissed.
However, looking to the facts mentioned in the writ
petition and the relief which are claimed by the petitioners in
the writ petition regarding cancellation of permission granted
to respondent No.6, I deem it proper to ask the State
Government to file reply. For the said purpose four weeks''
time is granted to the respondents/State to file reply.
List the matter after four weeks.