Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose from demolition proceedings initiated by the Cantonment Board against the respondent under the Cantonment Act, 1924. The respondent had raised construction allegedly in violation of statutory requirements. The appellant Board issued notices, and upon non-compliance resolved to demolish through its agency. The respondent challenged this before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Facts: The appellant issued a notice dated March 27, 1993 (recorded as received on May 2, 1973) under Section 85 of the Cantonment Act, 1924. The respondent carried out further construction. A notice under Section 256 was issued on January 3, 1974, and a second demolition notice under Section 185 on September 13, 1974. The respondent submitted a reply on October 30, 1974, admitting the construction but claiming bona fide action and requesting withdrawal. The area committee on December 7, 1974 resolved to give fifteen days for compliance and, failing that, to demolish through the Board. The High Court in Misc. Petition No. 2090/75 held that although Section 185 read with the Fifth Schedule did not require enquiry or reasons, principles of natural justice demanded a speaking order after considering the representation; since none was passed, the action was illegal. Hence the present appeal by special leave. Legal Issues: The sole question was whether the High Court was correct in requiring an independent enquiry and speaking order after the notice and the respondent’s reply. Arguments: The appellant contended that the Board is an elected body, opportunity was given, reply was received, and the representation was considered; therefore natural justice was satisfied and no independent enquiry or speaking order was needed. The respondent relied on the High Court’s reasoning that a speaking order was necessary. Court’s Analysis: The Supreme Court noted that the respondent in his reply admitted that he had constructed as pointed out in the notices, but claimed bona fide and sought reconsideration. The Court held that the High Court was not right in concluding that an independent enquiry was required. The Cantonment Board, being an elected body, had put the respondent on notice, considered his representation, and was not inclined to accede. Therefore the resolution did not violate natural justice. The Court observed that the statutory scheme under Section 185 read with the Fifth Schedule did not mandate an enquiry or reasons, but the minimum requirements of natural justice were met. The Court also recorded the appellant counsel’s statement that the respondent’s action could be regularised if he complied with law. Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and held that the Board’s resolution was valid. It permitted the respondent to make a fresh representation to the Board, which would forward it to the General Officer Commanding in Chief at Sagar for appropriate orders according to law. No costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Demolition Proceedings under Cantonment Act, 1924 - Section 185 read with Fifth Schedule - The High Court had held that although the statutory provision did not require an enquiry or reasons, natural justice mandated a speaking order after considering the representation; the Supreme Court reversed this, holding that where the respondent admitted illegal construction and the elected Cantonment Board considered his representation and was not inclined to accede, no independent enquiry or speaking order was required. Held that the resolution was not violative of natural justice and the appeal was allowed; respondent permitted to make fresh representation to the Board for appropriate orders. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was correct in holding that principles of natural justice require a speaking order and independent enquiry after notice and reply under Section 185 read with the Fifth Schedule of the Cantonment Act, 1924.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, held the Board's resolution was not violative of natural justice, and permitted the respondent to make a fresh representation to the Board, which would forward it to the General Officer Commanding in Chief at Sagar for appropriate order according to law. No costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice under Section 185 of Cantonment Act
- 1924 requires notice
- opportunity
- and consideration of representation
- no independent enquiry or speaking order required
- elected body's resolution valid after considering representation
- unauthorised construction may be regularised on compliance with law
