Bombay High Court Hears Writ Petition Challenging Central Government's Notification Substituting Nominated Member of Cantonment Board. Legality of Substitution Under Section 13(3) of Cantonments Act, 2006, Without Following Removal Procedure Under Section 34, is in Issue.

Writ petition challenging a Central Government notification substituting a nominated member of a Cantonment Board.

Petitioner sought quashing of the impugned notification dated 06.03.2025 and restoration of the earlier notification dated 03.01.2025 nominating her as a member of the Deolali Cantonment Board.

Illegal substitution of the petitioner's name as a nominated member without following the due procedure under Sections 34 and 13 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, and in violation of principles of natural justice.

Whether the Central Government had jurisdiction to substitute a nominated member under Section 13(3) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 in the absence of removal or vacancy. Whether the impugned notification constituted a removal requiring compliance with Section 34 of the Cantonments Act. Whether the substitution was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. Whether the doctrine of pleasure applies to nominated members in the face of specific removal provisions in the Act. Whether resort could be had to the General Clauses Act to infer a power of removal when the Act provides a specific removal procedure.

Notification substituting petitioner was issued without jurisdiction as her tenure under Section 13(3) was to continue until 10.02.2026, and the power to vary constitution does not include substitution. The power to vary does not encompass the power to 'substitute'; the Act provides a separate and specific procedure for removal under Section 34. Nomination could only be done in consultation with the GOC-in-C, and the Board had opined that respondent no.5 could be considered only after the term's expiry. The substitution singled out the petitioner arbitrarily while two other members appointed on the same date were not replaced; no show cause notice was issued, violating natural justice. The impugned notification, though styled as an 'amendment by substitution', in effect amounted to 'removal' without following Section 34 procedure. Section 34 applies to 'any member' including nominated members, so the removal provision covers the petitioner. When the statute contains a specific provision for removal with grounds and procedure, the General Clauses Act cannot be invoked to imply a power of removal; the power to appoint does not automatically include power to remove in such a case. The doctrine of pleasure/at-will has no application as the Act prescribes a removal procedure; reading it would be legislating. The impugned notification was issued without application of mind and was arbitrary. No satisfaction as required under Section 13(1) was recorded by the Central Government for the substitution.

That once the Central Government had notified the varied constitution of the Respondent No. 2–Deolali Cantonment Board, vide Notification dated 03.01.2025 (with effect from 11.02.2025), for a period of one year, i.e., till 10.02.2026, pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Cantonments Act, 2006, (the Petitioner’s tenure was to continue until 10.02.2026), the impugned Notification dated 06.03.2025, issued under the very same provision, ‘substituting’ the Respondent No.5 in place of the Petitioner, was ex facie illegal, and without any jurisdiction/power / authority. That the power to vary the constitution of the Board, does not include the power to ‘substitute’ a member, more particularly, when a specific power to remove a member is provided under the Act.

Writ petition filed challenging notification dated 06.03.2025. Court issued rule, made returnable forthwith with consent of parties, and took up for final disposal. The Division Bench judges had divergent views, and a separate judgment was delivered by Revati Mohite Dere, J. setting out facts and submissions.

• Cantonments Act, 2006: 13(1), 13(3), 34, 35