The judgment establishes the principle that the restrictions imposed for safety and security under the Works of Defence Act, 1903, are valid and non-justiciable, and the Central Government's opinion on relaxation of restrictions is not subject to judicial review.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that an order be issued directing the respondents to include Landour Cantonment, Mussoorie, Uttarakhand in Annexure-A to “Guildelines for issue of no Objection Certificate (NOC) for building constructions” dated 21.10.2016 (hereafter ‘the Circular’).

2. The petitioner claims to be an owner of a property known as Dahlia Bank, Survey No. 157, Landour Cantonment, Mussoorie, Uttarakhand (hereafter ‘the property’), which is situated in the vicinity of Institute of Technology Management (hereafter „ITM?). The said institute was established in the year 1962 and is operated by the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO). Concededly, ITM is classified as a defence establishment.

3. By a notification dated 30.08.2005 issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (hereafter ‘the Act’), the Central Government had imposed certain restrictions as specified in Clause (c) of Section 7 of the Act, on the use and on enjoyment of the land lying within the distance of 50 metres from the crest of the outer parapet of the boundary of ITM. The implication of the aforesaid notification is that no variation in the ground level, no building, wall, bank or other construction can be erected, added or altered except with the written approval of the General Officer Commanding of the District. Thus, the petitioner is proscribed from excavation or raising any construction on the property in question (Dahlia Bank) as the same is located within the distance of 50 metres from the boundary wall of ITM.

4. In terms of the Circular issued by the Ministry of Defence on 21.10.2016, it has been specified that security restrictions in respect of defence establishments/installations listed in Part-A of the Annexure to the Circular would apply only upto ten metres from the outer wall of such defence establishments/installations. The Circular also specifies that security restrictions in respect of defence establishments/installations listed in Part-B of the Annexure to the Circular would apply upto hundred metres from the outer wall of such defence establishments/installations.

5. Whereas Part-B of the Annexure to the Circular lists out 149 establishments/installations located in the State of Jammu and Kashmir; Part-A of the said Annexure includes 193 installations that are located in other parts of the country. Landour Cantonment is not included amongst the 193 defence establishments/installations listed in Part-A of the Annexure to the Circular dated 21.10.2016.

6. It is in the aforesaid context that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a direction that Landour Cantonment be also included as one of the defence establishments/installations in Part-A of the Annexure to the Circular.

7. The petitioner claims that exclusion of Landour Cantonment from Part-A of the Annexure to the circular is arbitrary and unreasonable and thus, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Rohan Thawani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner earnestly contended that ITM is an educational institution and restricting any construction within an area of 50 metres outside its boundary wall is unnecessary. He submitted that a perusal of Part-A of the Annexure to the Circular dated 21.10.2016 clearly indicates that restrictions on construction outside the boundary walls of several sensitive defence establishments was limited only to the area extending up to 10 metres beyond their boundary walls. He submitted that in the circumstances there would be no plausible reason for the respondent to have excluded Landour Cantonment from Part-A of the Annexure to the Circular.

8. Mr. Gaurang Kanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that restrictions on construction and other activity in the vicinity of defence establishment has been imposed towards safety and security of the installations and the reasons for the sa