Union of India and another vs The State of M.P. and others

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for following relief :

(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly set aside the impugned order dated 2/11/2016 passed by Dy. Secretary Town and Country Planning. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to cancel the permission granted for a high rise building near the Army establishment being a security risk and against the public interest.

(iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent No.6 to demolish and remove the construction in question.

(iv) The Hon'ble Court further pleased to pass any such order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.

(v) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted to the petitioners.

(vi) Cost be awarded to the petitioner."

The petitioners have submitted that the local authorities have granted permission to respondent No.6 for constructing high rise building in the vicinity of Grenadiers Regiment Centre (G.R.C.). It is submitted that due to the said high rise building, there is a security threat in the premises of the G.R.C. On Raju Yadav had filed a PIL challenging the permission granted to respondent No.6 for raising the said construction. The said writ petition was dismissed.

Thereafter as the petitioners were not party to the said writ petition, the petitioners have, therefore, filed a review petition

before this Court. The review petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the local authorities.

Accordingly, the petitioners had approached to the local authorities vide representation dated 08/05/2016 and 13/06/2015. As the representations were pending consideration, the petitioners, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.18630/2016. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 04/11/2015 with a liberty to the petitioners to file fresh representation before the Chief Secretary, Bhopal within a period of two weeks and, in turn, the representation was required to be decided within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation. The petitioners, accordingly, submitted a representation on 14/11/2015. As the representation was not decided, the petitioners had again approached to this Court by filing Writ Petition No.14120/2016. This Court vide order dated 14/2/2017 was permitted the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the order dated 2/11/2016. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 2/11/2016 the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the Dy.

Secretary in his order at paragraph-19.10 has stated that the Army Authorities do not have any objection for G+3 floor.

He further stated that as per Section 3(1) of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, a notification is required to prevent any construction from coming up on any particular land within a period of three months. On the basis of the said observations, the Dy. Secretary granted permission to respondent No.6 to construct the building of G+3 floors and restrained the builder for a period of three months from proceeding with additional floors and directed the petitioners to have a notification issued under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that while passing the said order, the authority has failed to consider that there is a security threat due to the said construction. She further submits that Grenadiers Regiment Centre is a category B training institute which trains over 1500 recruits every year in various fields to include physical training, drill, games, lectures and carrying out of tactical manuvorous including specialised training, all of which entails gathering of troops in large numbers. Such gathering may be targeted by Anti National Element and

terrorists who from the safe heights of the proposed adjoining high rise building will carry out constant monitoring and surveillance of such soft targets with an aim to carry out collateral and large scale destruction by aimed /standoff attacks at the installation. She further submits that the permission of construction which is granted to respondent No.6 is contrary to Section 299-A of the Municipal Corporation Act and in the light of the fact that security of the Centre amounts to public interest, the competent authority should have exercised its powers under Section 299-A of the Municipal Corporation Act by denying the permission to respondent No.6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 2/11/2016 may be quashed and the permission which is granted to respondent No.6 for raising high rise building under the Army establishment may also be quashed.

On the other hand, learned senior counsel for respondent No.6, on caveat, argues that the said construction has been raised by respondent No.6 after obtaining necessary permission from all the authorities. He further submits that the petitioners have failed to get a notification issued under

the Works of Defence Act, 1903. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, had issued a guidelines for issuance of no objection certificate for building construction etc on 21 st October, 2016.

Clause-A of the said circular provides that security restriction in respect of the defence establishment/installations located at 193 stations as listed in Part A of Annexure to this circular shall apply upto 10 meters from the outer wall of such defence establishments/installations to maintain clear line of sight for effective surveillance. Thus, as per the said clause, restrictions regarding construction is only upto 10 meters from the outer wall of such defence establishment. Jabalpur city falls under Part-A of the Annexure. On the basis of the said circular, learned senior counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the construction which is raised by respondent No.6 is beyond 10 meters from the outer wall of such defence establishment. In the light of the aforesaid, he submits that the writ petition may be dismissed.

However, looking to the facts mentioned in the writ petition and the relief which are claimed by the petitioners in the writ petition regarding cancellation of permission granted to respondent No.6, I deem it proper to ask the State Government to file reply. For the said purpose four weeks''

time is granted to the respondents/State to file reply.

List the matter after four weeks.