- (1.) Heard Shri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2,3 and 4.
(2.) This writ petition arose out of the proceedings under the Cantonments Act. Challenge is to the notice dated 19.7.2005 issued under Section 185 of the Cantonment Act, 1924(hereinafter referred to as the Old Act) and the order dated 5.2.2015 passed under Section 274 of the Cantonments Act 2006( New Act). Further challenge is to the notice of demolition dated 19.2.2015 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Jhansi under Section 320 of the Cantonment Act 2006 (New Act)
(3.) Challenge to the proceedings undertaken in the Cantonment Act is mainly on the ground that the notice under Section 185 of the Act does not disclose the offence committed by the petitioner nor it discloses the reason for taking decision for demolition of the construction. The date of construction has not been indicated in the notice. Mere averment that erection of the building constitutes an offence under Section 184 of the Act is not sufficient to exercise the power under Section 185 of the Act. There is no application of mind and no opportunity whatsoever has been provided to the petitioner. The appellate court did not accord due opportunity to the petitioner as the documents sought by the petitioner vide application dated 26.5.2014 before the argument in appeal have not been provided to him. The inspection report which has been relied upon to pass demolition order dated 19.7.2005 has not been served upon the petitioner.;