VIJAYKUMAR O YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Special Civil Applications Nos. 7355 of 2005, 7357 of 2005 and 7358 of 2005.

(2.) Present are the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a relief against the respondent that appropriate writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction be issued against the respondents nos. 1 and 2 to hold election for Ahmedabad Cantonment for the post of Civilian Members as per Section 13(4)(f) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 read with Cantonments Electoral Rules, 1945. It is to be seen that in accordance with Section 13 of the Act, a Board was constituted, the term of which was to expire on 31.5.2004, consequently, on occasioning of the vacancy, the respondents nos. 1 and 2 were obliged to hold elections for the civilian members, but they did not do so. We are told that on 27th/29th July, 2004, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, issued Notification S.R.O. 06(E) in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, varying the Board. According to the said notification, the Board had been varied for a period of one year and the term was to expire again on 31.5.2005.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in absence of any notification issued under Section 14, there is no scope for the respondents to say that no direction be issued against the respondents to hold the elections, so that in future, they may issue some notification under Section 14. His submission is that the Board is to be constituted in accordance with Section 13 and if the civilians have a right to represent in the Board then their rights cannot be sacrificed for one reason or the other.