ZAKI AHMAD Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY/GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF, CENTRAL COMMAND, LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri C.B. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) Cantonment Board, Agra issued notice to the Petitioner dated 8th/13th August, 2008 stating therein that he has raised unauthorized construction of one hall measuring 47'-0" x 47'-8" towards north west of Bungalow No. 166, Agra Cantt., Agra, which was an offence under Section 247 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (herein after referred to as the 'Act, 2006'). Petitioner was called upon to show-cause by 8th/15th August, 2008 as to why he may not be prosecuted under Section 247 of Act, 2006 and the constructions raised be not demolished in exercise of powers under Section 248/320 of the Act, 2006. Petitioner is stated to have submitted his reply to the said notice on 13th/18 August, 2008 stating that he was replacing the tinshed with the support of the iron angles, which was constructed in December, 1990 under the deemed-sanctioned within the knowledge of the Staff of the Cantonment Board, Agra. Explanation so furnished by the Petitioner was considered by the Cantonment Board and under Resolution No. 86 dated 30th August, 2008, Petitioner was called upon to demolish/remove the construction raised. A letter dated 1st October, 2008 was forwarded to the Petitioner under the signatures of the Chief, Executive Officer communicating the said decision of the Cantonment Board. Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 340 read with 341 and 342 of Act, 2006. The appeal has been dismissed under the order dated 16th February, 2010. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) From the records of the present writ petition, this Court finds that the Petitioner filed Zaki Ahmad v. Cantonment Board, Agra original suit No. 749 of 2008, in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra for prohibitory permanent injunction on 2nd May, 2008. The relief prayed for in the suit was that the Cantonment Board and its Staffs may be restrained by a prohibitory permanent injunction from entering into the house of the Petitioner i.e., Bungalow No. 166 without prior notice under Section 308 (2) of the Act, 2006 and from causing any resistance and interference in the replacement of the new leafs of tinshed on light iron girders and standing pillers, more appropriately described in the plaint itself. Along with the plaint, an ad interim injunction application was also made: On the add interim injunction application, the Trial Court refused to grant any ex parte injunction and directed that notices be issued to the Cantonment Board fixing 15th May, 2008 as the date. On 26th May, 2008 objections were filed on behalf of the Cantonment Board to the injunction application.