KOPPU SATYANARAYANA Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Hari Haran, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel representing the respondent/cantonment Board.

(2.) SRI Hari Haran, the learned counsel, had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. The learned Counsel also would submit that at a particular point of time, approval had been granted and objection had not been taken. But for certain reasons, the petitioner was unable to proceed with the construction and again when an application has been made praying for the building permission, the present objection had been taken. The learned counsel also would submit that as far as the other similar plots are concerned, in most of the plots constructions came up since permissions had been granted and the writ petitioner is being discriminated. The counsel also would maintain that at any rate the objection taken relating to the effective alternative remedy cannot be a sustainable objection.

(3.) PER contra, Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee had taken this Court through the impugned order and the reasons mentioned and would submit that the same is based on a resolution and hence the objection taken is a tenable objection. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Sections 122, 250 and 340 of the cantonment Act 2006, in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience.