T.A. Emanuel v. Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Cantonments Act, 1924 ss. 185, 274
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Appellate Authority Under Section 274 of the Cantonments Act,1924, Pune-411 001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari…
Judgment
T.A. Emanuel, S/o Late L.W. Emanuel, aged 49 years, R/o Bungalow No.213, Mudfort, Secunderabad, rep. by his General Power of Attorney Mr. A.M. Emanuel, S/o Late L.W. Emanuel, R/o No.212, MudFort, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND
Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad.
Operative part
Appellate Authority Under Section 274 of the Cantonments Act,1924, Pune-411 001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction and quash the notice/order dated 9-10-2000 issued by the first respondent- Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment in Ef.No.EB/UAC/ B.No.213/Mudfort, 577/3756 as well as the order of the second respondent - appellate authority, Pune, passed under section 274 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, dated 4-04-03 in appeal No.10 of 2001 after calling for the records. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: MR. DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he is not contesting the finding recorded by the original authority or appellate authority in issuing notice to remove the unauthorized construction, which is said to have been made by the petitioner, but submits that in view of the first proviso to Section 185 of the Cantonments Act 1924, the petitioner may be permitted to make an application for compounding or composition/regularization of the construction so made and till such application is filed and disposed of, further proceedings pursuant to the notice can not be proceeded with. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if there is any scheme for such compounding then only the application will be considered. Having regard to the said fact, the petitioner is permitted to make an application to the respondent board within four weeks from today for compounding/regularization of the construction is so made and on making such application, respondent board shall consider the same after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case and pass appropriate orders. Till appropriate orders are passed, the demolition pursuant to the notice shall not be proceeded with. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. _________________ 22nd June, 2004. *Nsr/Js ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To
1. The Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad.
2. The Appellate Authority under Section 274 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, Pune-411 001.
Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Cantonments Act, 1924 — ss. 185, 274; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Jun 2004. The bench was A GOPAL REDDY.
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.