IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7639 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22.11.2011 Jarnail Singh and another .... PETITIONERS Versus Cantonment Board through Chief Executive Offier, Ferozepur Cantt and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashuthosh Hoshiarpuri, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice/order dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Ferozepur Cantt (respondent No.2). Vide the impugned order, a fine of ` one lac has been imposed on the petitioners for making alterations or re-erection of the building under CWP No. 7639 of 2011 -2- the Cantonment area, without prior permission of the competent authority, and the petitioners have been directed to deposit the said amount through the CB Tax Collector immediately, failing which they shall pay further amount at the rate of ` 10,000/- per day. This order was passed by respondent No.2 under Section 244 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, which reads as under :- “244. Restrictions on use of buildings – (1) No person shall, without the written permission of the Board or otherwise than in conformity with the conditions if any, of such permission : - (a) use or permit to be used for human habitation any part of a building not originally erected or authorised to be used for that purpose or not used for that purpose before any alteration has been made therein by any work executed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the bye- laws made thereunder; (b) change or allow the change of the use of any land or building; (c) convert or allow the conversion of one kind of tenement into another kind. (2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub- section (1) shall on conviction be punishable with a fine which may extent to one lakh rupees and in the case of continuing contravention with an additional fine of rupees ten thousand for every day during which the contravention continues after the date it comes to the notice.” A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that a person, who is to be fined, has to be convicted first and then order of fine is to be passed and CWP No. 7639 of 2011 -3- such an order could have been passed by following the principle of natural justice. It is the case of the petitioners that they have not changed the nature of the property, as alleged in the impugned notice/order and before issuing this notice/order, they were not heard. In the written statement, filed by the respondents, as well as during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has admitted that the aforesaid notice/order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is a settled principle of law that nobody should be punished or condemned unheard. Before passing an adverse order on the basis of any notice, principle of natural justice is to be followed. Since it is admitted position that before passing the impugned order, the petitioners were not heard and they were not provided an opportunity to defend themselves. In view of this admitted position, we are of the opinion that the notice/order dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P-1), issued by respondent No.2, is not sustainable under law. In view of the above, notice/order dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P- 1), issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Ferozepur Cantt (respondent No.2), is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to take a fresh decision on the impugned notice in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the CWP No. 7639 of 2011 -4- petitioners, and pass a speaking order. Petition is disposed of accordingly. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 22, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) sd/ndj JUDGE