Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army in 1969. He retired as Lt. Col. of the Indian Army on 29th June, 1997. The writ petition was filed on 14th September, 1997. The basic allegation is the writ petition is that the respondents were misutilising property belonging to the Army for commercial purposes. The land in question is the recreational centre called "Sangem" run by the Army Officers' Institute. According to the petitioner, civilians were being permitted to Use the facilities at Sangam upon payment of hiring charges for holding Various social functions. The petitioner has claimed that such user of Army land for commercial purposes was illegal. His complaint is that such user jeopardised defence security as the land was situated in Fort William, a high security area. His further grievances ate that by such use, Army personnel were being deprived of the freedom to use the facilities in the complex and also that monies realised from such commercial activity were sot being properly accounted for by the AOI nor deposited with the Government Treasury.
(2.) The petitioner has claimed that he had in impeccable service record. It is his allegation that after he was posted in Calcutta in 1994, he had raised questions regarding the running of the Sangem Complex by the Army Officers' Institute. According to the petitioner by reason of this, the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 who are all office holders of the Army Officers' Institute had acted vindictively against the petitioner and his family. The petitioner's membership of the Army Officers' institute was ultimately suspended by the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 on 5th November, 1996. In the writ petition apart from claiming several reliefs with regard to the running of the Army Officers' Institute, the petitioner has also challenged the termination of his membership. This challenge was not pressed by the petitioner.
(3.) The respondents Nos. 5,6 and 7 have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. The other respondents have not filed any affidavit but have supported the stand of the respondents Nos 5, 6 and 7.;