The court determined that a nominated member's removal must adhere to the procedural safeguards outlined in the Cantonments Act, and arbitrary substitution without adherence to these processes is illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Revati Mohite Dere, J.

1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2 Rule. Mr. Khandeparkar, Senior Counsel waives service on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mrs. Neeta Masurkar waives service on behalf of the Respondent No.2. Mr. Rajiv Patil, Senior Counsel waives service on behalf of the Respondent No.5.

3 Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal.

4 At the outset, I may note that I am delivering a separate judgment, as my learned Sister and I have taken divergent views on the issues arising in the petition, and consequently, on the conclusion.

5 By this petition, the Petitioner has impugned the Notification dated 06.03.2025, issued by the Ministry of Defence, whereby the Petitioner’s name, as a nominated member of the Cantonment Board, Deolali, was substituted with that of Respondent No.5–Sachin Thakre. The Petitioner, therefore, seeks quashing and setting aside of the said Notification. Consequently, the Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondents to restore the Notification dated 03.01.2025, issued by the Respondent No.1, insofar as it nominates the Petitioner as a member of the Deolali Cantonment Board.

6 A few facts which have a bearing on and are necessary for deciding this petition, are as under: -

On 05.02.2021, the Central Government (Respondent No.4) issued a notification varying the constitution of certain Cantonment Boards, which included the 2^nd Respondent-Board.

On 12.11.2021, the Central Government issued a notification nominating civilian members to certain Cantonment Boards, which included the 2^nd Respondent-Board. Accordingly, the Petitioner was nominated as a member of the 2^nd Respondent-Board, with effect from 12.11.2021 till 10.02.2022.

On 07.02.2022, the Central Government, by a further notification again varied the constitution of the 2^nd Respondent-Board, with effect from 11.02.2022, for a further period of six months.

On 05.08.2022, the Central Government by a further notification again varied the constitution of 2^nd Respondent- Board, for a further period of six months, with effect from 11.03.2022.

Pursuant thereto, vide Notification dated 07.02.2023, the Petitioner came to be nominated again as a member of the 2^nd Respondent-Board, for a period of six months, with effect from 11.03.2023.

It appears, and this fact is not disputed, that vide Notification dated 17.02.2023, the Central Government notified holding of ordinary elections to certain Cantonment Boards; however, by a subsequent Notification dated 17.02.2023, the same came to be rescinded, and hence, elections could not be held.

Hence, vide Notification dated 03.08.2023, the Central Government, by a further Notification, varied the constitution of the 2^nd Respondent-Board for a period of six months, with effect from 11.08.2023.

Accordingly, the Central Government, vide Notification dated 04.08.2023, nominated the Petitioner as a member of the 2^nd Respondent-Board for a period of six months, with effect from 11.08.2023.

Again, by a further Notification dated 30.01.2024, the Central Government, varied the constitution of the 2^nd Respondent-Board, for a period of one year, with effect from 11.02.2024.

Accordingly, vide Notification dated 31.01.2024, the Petitioner came to be nominated as a member of the 2^nd Respondent-Board for a period of one year, with effect from 11.02.2024.

Pursuant thereto, the 2^nd Respondent-Board, in its meeting, considered and noted the Notification dated 03.01.2025, appointing the Petitioner as a member of the said Board, for a period ending 10.02.2026.

It appears that thereafter, Respondent No.4 was requested, vide email dated 29.01.2