- (1.) Heard Mr. Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
(2.) This petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2017, passed by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner has been removed as a Member of respondent No.2-Cantonment Board, Mathura (in short 'the Board'), in exercise of the powers under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (in short 'the Act'). This provision provides that the Central Government may remove from the Board any Member thereof, who has himself done or aided or abetted encroachments and illegal constructions on defence land in contravention of the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder. The order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the first respondent reads thus: JUDGEMENT_363_LAWS(ALL)3_2018_1.html
(3.) The allegation against the petitioner was that on 23.4.2016 when Cantonment Board officials and about 110-120 conservancy staffs proceeded to demolish an unauthorized construction, the petitioner not only himself pelted stones on the officials, but also incited the public to do so, due to which some of the officials sustained injuries and official vehicle was also damaged. It is not in dispute that an FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and others, bearing FIR No. 0502 dated 24.4.2016, for the offences punishable under Sections 147 / 148 / 332 / 353 / 336 / 323 / 427 / 436 / 511 and 447 of IPC, at Thana Highway, Mathura Police Station. The order records that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 9.5.2017, under Section 34(4) of the Act. The show cause notice was replied by the petitioner. We have perused the show cause notice and the reply. It is clear therefrom that the petitioner, who was elected Member of the Board, for no reason, went to the spot when the demolition squad of the Board had gone for removal of encroachments on 23.4.2016. There, it further appears, he was trying to justify the encroachments made on the Cantonment land. From paragraph 14 of the reply, it appears to us that the petitioner not only was justifying encroachments but he also tried to mislead the Authorities while persuading them not to take action of demolition, by making reference to some of the High Court's order and order of the Supreme Court. Petitioner has placed the order of the High Court on record in support of his contention. From bare perusal of the order, it is clear that the land involved in the said writ petition, bearing Writ-B No. 2915 of 2006 (Annexure 3) and the land involved in the instant petition are totally different. Moreover, it is also not in dispute that the Board was not even party to the said writ petition. In short, the order of the High Court dated 12.1.2010, passed in Writ-B No. 2915 of 2006, had nothing to do with the land in dispute involved in the incident dated 23.4.2016. Even from the contents of the order, it is clear that the petitioner was trying to support the encroachers on the defence land. Counsel for petitioner repeatedly submitted that the petitioner has clearly denied the allegation of pelting stones and also inciting the public to do so, and in any case, on this ground he cannot be removed being a member of the Board. From perusal of the show cause notice, the petitioner's reply and also the order impugned, we are satisfied that the action under Section 34(1)(e) has been taken against the petitioner on the basis of the admitted facts that he was trying to protect the encroachments/illegal constructions on defence land not only by going to the spot, for no reason, but also misleading the demolition squad by making reference to orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court, which had absolutely nothing to do with the alleged encroachments. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. Petition is dismissed.;