Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned
Provisions considered
- Cantonments Act, 2006 s. 248
Judgment
The petitioner was accorded sanction to construct a building on the premises bearing No.1-19-1/2/3 at Rasoolpura, Secunderabad by the cantonment board vide proceedings dated 24.03.2008. It is stated that on account of some disputes, the petitioner had to face several proceedings and ultimately the construction was completed by the year 2000. The 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.05.2009 under Section 248 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, alleging that the petitioner is making unauthorized construction of a kitchen, two toilets and a passage. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 01.06.2009. He stated that the construction as permitted vide proceedings dated 24.03.2009 is completed in the year 2000 as per the plan and that no construction has been made thereafter. The 2nd respondent issued a final notice dated
27.09.2009 directing the petitioner to remove the structure mentioned in the show cause notice. The same is
Operative part
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was accorded permission way back on 24.03.1998. In case, the petitioner has deviated from the sanctioned plan, the 2nd respondent has the power to proceed against the same irrespective of the date of construction. When the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice, the petitioner promptly responded by stating that he did not make any construction contrary to the sanction plan much less after lapse thereof. When such is the representation made by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent ought to have formed a clear opinion before the final notice is given. Except that he has chosen to fill the blanks in the prescribed form, the 2nd respondent did not choose to address the various issues that have been projected by the petitioner in his explanation. Such an exercise cannot be countenanced. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. It is however left open to the 2nd respondent to issue fresh notice in which he shall record a specific finding duly taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner. If he entertains any doubt, he shall call upon the petitioner to clarify the same. There shall be no order as to costs. JSU __________ 27.10.2009 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22689 of 2009 Date: 27.10.2009 JSU
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Cantonments Act, 2006 — s. 248.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.