Summary
The Supreme Court upheld quashing of cantonment demolition notices and appellate orders issued mechanically without proper consideration of objections or disclosure of the inspection report relied upon. The authorities retained liberty to proceed afresh, but under the Cantonments Act, 2006, with disclosure and adequate opportunity to respond. Whether the constructions were actually unauthorised remained open; the judgment did not regularise them.
Issues
- Whether the demolition notices and appellate orders complied with procedural fairness.
- Under which enactment and safeguards fresh proceedings could continue.
Held
- The final notice failed even to refer to the earlier show-cause notice and objections, if any. The mechanical notices and stereotyped appellate orders were properly quashed; the inspection report relied upon against the occupants had not been furnished to them. (¶ 11–12)
- The High Court’s rejection of the objections to jurisdiction and the twelve-month period warranted no interference, particularly since the occupants had filed no appeals against those findings. (¶ 11)
- Fresh action was permissible only under the 2006 Act. Fresh show-cause notices were to continue the earlier notices, furnish the inspection report and afford sufficient opportunity before lawful orders were passed. The alleged unauthorised character of the constructions remained for the authorities to determine. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeals dismissed. Quashing of the notices and appellate orders upheld, with liberty for fresh proceedings under the Cantonments Act, 2006 subject to disclosure, hearing and independent consideration of whether construction was unauthorised.