Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2757/2017 on 22 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2757 of 2017
BETWEEN:
Anand Prakash Arora & others. .....Petitioners
(By Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for petitioner no. 3)
AND:
Union of India & others. ...Respondents
(By Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, Standing Counsel for Union of
India/respondent nos. 1 & 4 and Mr. B.S. Adhikari,
Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3)
JUDGMENT
By means of this writ petition, petitioners
have sought the following reliefs:-
"a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated
04.08.2015 (as contained in Annexure-1)
passed by Respondent No. 3 and order dated
27.06.2017 (as contained in Annexure-2)
passed by Respondent No. 4.
b. to issue a writ of mandamus directing
respondents to consider the application No.
238 dated 23.07.2015 for sanctioning a plan
for constructing a hostel."
2. Petitioners proposed to construct a hostel,
therefore, they applied for sanction of house plan.
Their application was rejected by Chief Executive
Officer, Cantonment Board, Dehradun vide order dated
04.08.2015. Petitioners thereafter filed an Appeal
under Section 340 of Cantonments Act, 2006; which
was rejected by General Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Central Command, by a detailed order dated
27.06.2017. Feeling aggrieved, by these two orders,
petitioners have approached this Court.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that petitioners' application for sanction of
house plan was rejected by placing reliance upon two
notifications issued under Section 181-A of
Cantonments Act, 1924, on 10.1.1942 & 26.06.1967.
4. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing for petitioner no. 3 submits that similar
controversy has been decided by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 67 of 2014, in
which import of these notifications was considered &
discussed. Thus according to him, the order passed by
Chief Executive Officer, rejecting petitioners' application
and also the order passed in appeal by General Officer
Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command, are
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Per contra, Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel
appearing for Cantonment Board has drawn attention of
this Court to the provision contained in Section 57 of
Cantonments Act, 2006, which is reproduced below:
"57. Power of Central Government to review.-
The Central Government may, at any time, review
any decision or order of the Board or the General
Officer Commanding- in- Chief, the Command, and
pass such orders thereon as it may deem fit:
Provided that where it is proposed to modify a
decision or order of the Board reasonable opportunity
shall be given to the Board to show cause why the
decision or order in question should not be modified."
6. Based on Section 57 of the Act, learned
counsel appearing for Cantonment board submits that
since petitioners have a remedy of approaching the
Central Government, seeking review of the order
passed by General Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Central Command, therefore, the writ petition is liable
to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
7. This Court finds substance in the contention
raised on behalf of respondents.
8. Admittedly, petitioners have a statutory
remedy available under Section 57 of the Cantonments
Act, 2006, therefore, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the Writ Petition at this stage.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
with liberty to petitioners to approach the Central
Government under Section 57 of the Cantonments Act,
2006.
10. This Court hopes and expects that if
petitioners make application under Section 57 of
Cantonments Act, 2006, the same shall be considered
and decided by the Central Government expeditiously.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Navin
