Back
Karnataka High Court
Nitin G.Khot - Appellant
Versus
Station Commandant, Belgaum - Respondent
Decided On : 01-23-98
W.A. : 3549 of 1997
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - VIOLATION OF ART. 19(1)(D) - CANTONMENT ACT - RULES 4, 5, 13, 14 - The judgment discusses the violation of the fundamental right of freedom of movement guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India due to the closure of public roads by the army authorities in the city of Belgaum. The court analyzed the provisions of the Cantonment Act and Rules 4, 5, 13, and 14 to determine the classification and management of land in the cantonment area, and concluded that the restrictions imposed on the public roads were unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Fact of the Case:
The army authorities in Belgaum closed 16 public roads, leading to inconvenience for the residents and violation of their fundamental right to freedom of movement. The respondents claimed that the roads were within the cantonment area and fell under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the closure of public roads by the army authorities violated the fundamental right of freedom of movement guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. The court held that the restrictions imposed were unreasonable and unconstitutional, as they were not supported by any statutory provision or valid legislative measure.
Issues: Violation of fundamental right to freedom of movement, Jurisdiction over the public roads within the cantonment area, Reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the army authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The classification and management of land in the cantonment area under the Cantonment Act and Rules were analyzed to determine the legality of the restrictions imposed on the public roads. The court held that the restrictions were unconstitutional as they were not supported by any valid legislative measure or administrative order.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the learned single Judge was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the appellants was allowed. The restrictions imposed by the Army Authorities on the public roads were held unconstitutional, and the respondents were directed not to restrict the movement of the citizens on the affected roads.
( 1 ) FREEDOM of movement is a fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution of India. The free movement assured by clause (1) (d) of Art. 19 relates not to general rights of locomotion but refers to the right of shifting and movement from one part of the territory of the country to another without discrimination, restrictions or restrains. This right includes freedom of movement within a State as also between one State and another. The State, cannot put restrictions upon the movement of a citizen without reasonable grounds. As and when such restrictions are imposed, the same are required to be tested by the permissible limits prescribed under clause (6) of Art. 19. It has to be kept in mind that the right conferred by the aforesaid clause is a right enjoyable by a free man. The rights conferred by Art. 19 are popularly known as Civil Rights as distinguishable from legal, political and contractual rights.
( 2 ) SUCH a golden right enshrined in Art. 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution was alleged to have been violated by the respondent army authorities in the city of Belgaum, a peaceful and historic city located in the North-West of Karnataka. It is alleged that the army authorities have completely closed 16 roads in the city resulting in not only the inconvenience to the residents of the city but also the population living around the city who have been illegally prevented from using the roads. The 16 roads regarding which the writ petition was filed are :1. Nagzari road/albert Ekka road/pandurang Salunke Marg. 2. Laxmi Mandir Road. 3. Esedar road from Maj. Ramaswamy Avenue to Thimmayya road. 4. Parade road/burj road. 5. Rajendra Singhji road. 6. Arsenal road/hoshiar Singh road. 7. Frere road. Race course road/point road. 9. Ramghat road. 10. Namdev Jadhav road. Thimmayya road. 12. M. H. Road/k. V. road. 13. Havlock road/o. P. Malhotra road. 14. Gymkhana road. 15. Nolhan Marg. 16. Hilli road.
( 3 ) THE public interest litigation initiated by public spirited persons had been resisted by the respondents on various grounds as detailed in the statement of objections filed in the case. It was submitted that no fundamental right of any citizen had been violated. The respondentss, however, had admitted the closure of the following roads :1. Albert Ekka road2. Laxmi Mandir road3. Parade road/burj road4. Pandurang Salunke Marg5. Arsenal road. Frere road. M. H. /k. V. road.
( 4 ) IT was submitted that the aforesaid roads fell within the cantonment area. The civilians were admitted to have been permitted to reside in cantonment areas to cater the needs of the garrison station there. The cantonment could not be treated on par with municipalities. Station commandant was claimed to be possessing the powers under Section 51 of the Cantonment Act to suspend a decision of the Board which he considered prejudicial to the health, welfare, discipline and security of the force. The administration of the land within the cantonment was governed by Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 (hereinafter called the Cantonment Rules) framed by the Central Government under Section 280 of the Cantonment Act. According to the aforesaid Rules the land in cantonment is divided into 3 categories i. e. , class A, B and C. Class "a" land is further sub-divided as class A (1) and class A (2) lands. Class A (1) land is a land which is under the active use and occupation of the military authorities and class A (2) land is a land which is not in active use and occupation of the military authorities, but reserved for such use. The roads were claimed to be situated on class A (1) land property belonging to the Central Government upon which no member of public could claim any right to enter. It was further contended that the opening or closing of these properties was at the discretion of the Ministry of Defence. As the roads, the subject matter of dispute, were allegedly located within the property of Ministry of Defence, the petition
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
