The construction constituted material alteration as per the provisions of the Cantonments Act, and the Board's action was upheld.

(PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR,J)

1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges notice dated 21st May, 2009 issued by respondent No.1 Pune Cantonment Board issued under Section 248 (1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” for short), order dated 30th November, 2013 passed in Appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 340 of the said Act and consequent notice dated 12th February, 2014 issued by the Board calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction in question. Considering the nature of controversy, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. Hence, Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner who is an occupant of residential premises within the limits of the Cantonment Board had sought sanction of building plans by applying to the Board on 2nd August, 2007. On 6th May, 2008 the Board accorded sanction to the building plans under Section 238 of the said Act. The petitioner thereafter commenced the work of construction. During the course of inspection on 23rd December, 2008 it was noticed by the technical staff of the Board that certain works were being carried out at the servant quarters without prior approval of the Board. It was noticed that there was demolition and reconstruction of the servant quarters. On being asked to stop the aforesaid work the petitioner informed the Chief Executive Officer that minor repairs were being undertaken and old GI sheets were being replaced. Thereafter on 21st May, 2009 the Chief Executive Officer of the Board issued a notice to the petitioner in exercise of power under Section 248 (1) of the said Act to demolish the work undertaken and stop further construction at the servants quarters.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice preferred appeal under Section 340 of the said Act before the General Officer, Commanding in Chief Pune. The Appellate Authority after considering the material on record and after hearing the parties held that the petitioner had demolished and reconstructed the old servant quarters without sanction from the Board. The appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. As a consequence thereof the Board issued a notice to the petitioner on 12th February 2014 asking him to comply with the initial notice dated 21st May, 2009. It is in this background that the petitioner has approached this Court and has challenged the action of the Board calling upon him to demolish the work undertaken by him.

4. Dr Virendra Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel with Mr Nikhil Sakhardande and Ms Ayushi Agarwal submitted that the Board had initiated the entire action on a wrong premise. It was submitted that work in the nature of minor repairs to the roof was sought to be undertaken and such work did not require any previous sanction from the Board. It was submitted that as the old GI sheets on the roof were rusted resulting in leakage, the same were required to be replaced. This, the learned Senior Counsel urged did not amount to making any material alteration in the building and hence there was no occasion to invoke the provision of Section 235 (2) (a) of the said Act. Relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Swaroop Gupta Vs. Cantonment Board Lucknow reported in AIR 1961 Allahabad 263 it was submitted that replacing the roof with a view to prevent leakage did not amount to any material alteration to the premises. It was, thus, submitted that the entire action initiated by the Board was misconceived. It was further urged by the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned order dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner did not disclose proper application of mind to the relevant facts and the contentions as urged. In the absence of a detailed and reasoned order being passed by the Appellate Authority the same could not be sustained in law. It was, therefor