The Bombay High Court ruled on a petition by Hitendra Singh R Chopra against the illegal and unauthorized use of the basement of Nirman Arcade in Dehu Road Cantonment area. The Court directed the Cantonment Board and the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) to take immediate and effective action against the illegal activities being conducted, including sealing the premises and prosecuting those responsible. The Court criticized the inaction of the authorities despite clear statutory provisions under the Cantonments Act, 2006, and mandated compliance reports to be submitted within three months.

1. Petitioner's Grievance (Paras 1-6)

The petitioner, a retired colonel, highlighted the illegal conversion of godowns in the basement of Nirman Arcade into commercial establishments, including bars, restaurants, and gambling dens. Despite complaints to the Cantonment Board and PCMC, the authorities failed to take meaningful action.

2. Authorities’ Helplessness (Paras 7-9)

The Cantonment Board and PCMC admitted to the unauthorized conversions but expressed helplessness in stopping these activities. The Cantonment Board insisted that only PCMC had the power to act, while PCMC argued that it was a matter solely under the Cantonment Board’s jurisdiction.

3. Delayed and Insufficient Action (Paras 10-13)

Despite several communications between the Cantonment Board and other statutory authorities, no decisive action was taken. Inspections confirmed the unauthorized activities, but follow-ups and enforcement remained inadequate.

4. Respondents’ Defense and NOCs (Paras 18-25)

Respondents Nos. 9 to 12 argued that they had obtained NOCs from individual members of the Cantonment Board. The Court noted that these NOCs were issued on personal letterheads and not by the Board itself, thus lacking legal authority.

5. Legal Provisions and Court’s Criticism (Paras 29-43)

The Court referred to various sections of the Cantonments Act, 2006, such as Sections 234, 244, and 248, emphasizing the Cantonment Board's powers to prevent and rectify unauthorized construction and usage. The Court expressed disapproval of the authorities’ reluctance and failure to act despite statutory mandates.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Cantonments Act, 2006:
  • Section 224: Cantonment Board’s duty to control and manage construction activities.
  • Section 234 & 244: Provisions for preventing unauthorized construction and usage in Cantonment areas.
  • Section 248: Board's power to demolish illegal structures and prevent unauthorized activities.

Ratio (Legal Reasoning):

The Court held that the Cantonment Board and PCMC, as statutory authorities, are duty-bound to take action against illegal and unauthorized constructions under the Cantonments Act. The issuance of NOCs by individual members does not constitute legal authorization, and the authorities must ensure compliance with the statutory provisions. The judgment emphasizes accountability and the need for proactive enforcement by the authorities to maintain order and legality in sensitive areas like Cantonments.

Subjects:

Judicial intervention, enforcement of municipal and cantonment regulations, statutory obligations, accountability in public administration.

#CantonmentsAct2006  #IllegalConstruction #MunicipalCompliance #JudicialReview