Allahabad High Court
Sharda Prasad Dubey And 2 Others vs Cantonment Board Varanasi And 3 Others on 8 July, 2020
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2339 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sharda Prasad Dubey And 2 Others Respondent :- Cantonment Board Varanasi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Shakti Dhar Dube Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By the impugned order dated 30.01.2020 rendered by the learned appellate court, the former has agreed with the view of the learned trial court in its order dated 23.11.2010 and has rejected the interim injunction application tendered by the petitioners-plaintiffs.
The proceedings in issue were taken out against the petitioners by the respondent Cantonment Board under the Cantonments Act, 1924, for allegedly erecting illegal constructions by issuing notices dated 30.04.1985 under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act,1924, and dated 09.07.1985 under Section 256 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The petitioners had tendered their reply to the aforesaid notices on 18.06.1985.
The learned appellate court has noticed the relevant provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and found that the adequate remedies are available to the plaintiffs-petitioners under the Cantonments Act, 1924. The Cantonment authorities are vested with appropriate powers, to do what a normally civil court would do to adjudicate the controversy between the parties.
The learned appellate court has fortified its conclusions with good authorities, including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durga Shanker Mehta Vs. Raghuraj Singh, reported at AIR 1954 SC 520; Dhullabhai and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported at AIR 1969 SC 78; N.D.M.C. Vs. Satish Chantra, reported at AIR 2003 SC 3187; and State of U.P. Thru. Executive Engineer UP PWD Vs. Tara Singh Jaiswal, reported at AIR 2013 All 35.
No perversity in the order passed by the learned appellate court could be established. The judgment of the learned appellate court is supported with cogent reasons. There is no palpable infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned courts below. Nor has any miscarriage of justice been caused by the impugned judgments. This Court does not deem it a fit case to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the favour of the petitioners, and hence declines to interfere in the order passed by the learned court below.
Faced with this Shri Pramod Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the relief sought in the instant petition. He recasts the relief.
The only prayer now made by the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Pramod Pathak, is that the reply of the petitioners may be considered on its merits by the authorities. He also contends that in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid adjudication, they may be granted liberty to invoke their remedy under the Cantonments Act, 1924.
Shri K. K. Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Shakti Dhar Dube, learned counsel for the respondent does not object to the aforesaid prayer.
With consent of both parties, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The petitioners shall submit a fresh reply to the notices issued by the Cantonment Board on various dates under different provisions for allegedly raising illegal constructions within a period of four weeks.
2. The competent authority of the Cantonment Board at Varanasi shall decide the controversy in accordance with law after due consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioners within a further period of three months.
3. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the competent authority of the Cantonment Board at Varanasi, they are at liberty to invoke appropriate remedies under the Cantonments Act, 1924.
Order Date :- 8.7.2020 Dhananjai