Jai Inder Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
compounded by the Authority concerned, this petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Cantonments Act, 2006 s. 248
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and as it is not in dispute that certain un-authorized constructions have been compounded by the Authority concerned, this petition is disposed of without any observation on merit, but with the direction that in case the petitioner…
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ For the petitioner Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. : _ For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that a writ of certiorari may be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order/notice no. CBS/10/67/-711 dated 25-09- 2019 (Annexure P-4). Further, the illegal notice dated
27.10.2004 (Annexure P-1) issued by incompetent authority u/S 248 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 may also be set aside and quashed having been issued beyond jurisdiction.”
The respondents have initiated action against the petitioner for un-authorized construction and in light of the fact that despite due notices the un-authorized construction was not removed by the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon to remove the same within a time bound period and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 approached this Court on the ground that whereas the cases of similarly situated persons have been compounded, the petitioner has been discriminated. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a clear case of discrimination.
Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, by referring to the reply has apprised the Court that the petitioner has been proceeded strictly in accordance with law and no case for compounding of un-authorized construction is made out. He further submitted that the action has been taken against the petitioner in terms of the directions of this Court in RSA No.437 of
Operative part
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and as it is not in dispute that certain un-authorized constructions have been compounded by the Authority concerned, this petition is disposed of without any observation on merit, but with the direction that in case the petitioner approaches the Authority concerned by way of appropriate representation on or before 15.09.2025, for compounding of the un-authorized construction, then let the said representation be decided by the Authority in accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice within a reasonable time. Till the representation is decided by the Authority concerned, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in terms of the impugned order. However, it is clarified that if representation is not filed by the petitioner on or before 15.09.2025, then this order will 3 loose its efficacy and the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as per law in accordance with the Policy and Building Bylaws that govern the field. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. August 29, 2025 (Rishi) (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: compounded by the Authority concerned, this petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Cantonments Act, 2006 — s. 248.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 29 Aug 2025. The bench was AJAY MOHAN GOEL.
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.