IMPORTANT POINT
Exercise of the statutory power of grant of extension of time u/s 183-A of the Cantonment Act, 1924, is not mechanical or automatic and the total non-consideration of any relevant fact while granting extension of time and the absence of any reason for grant of the sanction is alone sufficient to vitiate the order.

Headnote:Cantonments Act, 1924-Sections 52, 180A, 181A, 183, 183A -Building sanction-Extension of time allowed has to be in continuity -It cannot exceed the period fixed initially for completion of building-Exercise of statutory power of grant of extension is not mechanical or automatic-Decision to be taken on application of mind with reference to relevant facts and circumstances of case-Total non-consideration of any relevant fact by CEO while granting extension of time and absence of any reason for grant of sanction -Arbitrary exercise of power- GOC-in-Chief was right in setting aside that order u/s 52.
       Held : that the exercise of the statutory power of grant of extension of time under Section 183-A is not mechanical or automatic and requires a decision to be taken on application of mind with reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The CEO should have considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of the present case before he came to the conclusion that extension of that period was called for particularly, when no construction of the building had been commenced till then and additional restrictions had been imposed meanwhile according to which such a building sanction could not be granted if the matter were to be considered for grant of a fresh sanction contemplated under Section 183-A. Shri Nariman rightly does not dispute that even if the additional restrictions were to apply prospectively to the grant of a fresh sanction thereafter, this was a relevant circumstance to be considered while deciding to grant extension of that period even in this case. The total non-consideration of any relevant fact by the CEO while granting extension of time by order dated 2.5.1986 and the absence of any reason for grant of the sanction is alone sufficient to vitiate the ECO s order. (Para 15)
       The GOC-in-Chief s order refers, inter alia, to the additional restrictions imposed in the meantime as relevant factors for consideration. It is rightly not disputed that this was a relevant factor to consider while deciding the question of extending the period. In substance, the GOC-in-Chief took the view that permitting the construction of such a building which had not till then begun would flagrantly violate the building restrictions which had come into force by then. (Para 16)

JUDGMENT

J.S. Verma, J.-The dispute relates to the building sanction of House No. 2, Sholapur Bazar Road, Pune, which falls within the area of Pune Cantonment governed by the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

2. The respondent No. 1 was granted a building sanction under Section 181 of the Act on 2-7-1981 effective from 6.7.1981. The building was intended to be used for commercial/residential purposes; it was to be an RCC framed structure and to consist of ground and five upper stories (i.e. stilt + six upper stories); the nature of soil was hard rock; the construction work was to be commenced within one year of the sanction i.e. before 6.7.1982; and was to be completed within 12 months from the date of commencement of the work. The building bye-laws existing at the time of the sanction did not contain any restrictions with regard to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or number of floors or height of the building. By a letter dated 3.7.1982, barely three days before expiry or the permissible period for commencement of the work, a letter was sent by the respondent No. 1 stating that the work had been commenced on that day. For the purposes of this case, the appellants did not dispute this claim of the respondent no. 1. According to the conditions of the building sanction imposed under the relevant statutory provisions, the construction of the building had to be completed within 12 calendar months from the date of commencement of the work i.e. upto 3.7.1983. Admittedly, the construction of the building was neither completed nor was extension of time sought within that period. The respondent No. 1 claims to have made an application for extension of time to complete the construction on 24.9.1983, after expiry of the time allowed. For the purposes of this case the appellants do not dispute even this claim. The contents of that application alleged to have been made by the respondent No. 1, are as under :

"MRJ : 9/86/736 24.9.1983

The Executive Officer,

Cantonment Board,

Pune.

Sub: Extension of time.

Ref : your sanction No.2/SH/B3 dated 6.7.81, for our project at No. 2, Sholapur Bazar road.

Sir,

We have commenced the above work with effect from 3.7.82 and your office was intimated accordingly vide our letter No. MPJ : MK/7/82, dated 3.7.1982.

It was not possible to complete the works within a span of one year due to the various following reasons :

1. Hard rock is met with for basement foundation which requires chiselling.

2. Non-availability of building materials.

3. Due to change in the strate now met with, structural detailing requires some changes.

4. Due to various other difficulties.

We, therefore, request you to kindly grant us an extension of time for a further period of 24 months and oblige.

Yours faithfully,

for MPJ Builders.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Kumar More)

Partner."

On 24.5.1984, an engineer of the Cantonment Board inspected the site and submitted a report that no erection work of the building had been commenced till then; the owner had not made nay application for extension of time; and the sanction had lapsed. The making of this report is undisputed. Thereafter, on 9.9.1985, an application, said to be the second application for extension of time was made by the respondent No.1. That application is as under :

"BY REGISTERED A.D.

HPJ\RRH\9\85\106 September 9th 1985

Executive Officer,

Pune Cantonment Board,

Pune 411 001

Ref. : (a) Your sanction No. 2/SH/B-3 of 6/7/1981 for our project at No.2 Sholapur Bazar road.

(b) Our letter No. HPJ/MK/7/82/343 of 3.7.1982 regarding intimation of commencement.

Sir,

Due to various unforeseen reasons and difficulties, we could make substantial progress with the work at our site at 2 Sholapur Bazar Road.

We request you to grant us further extension of 18 months and oblige.

We assure you that we will try our best to complete the building within this extended period.

Thank

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1236

Cases Referred (1)