1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION .4919 OF 2009 Kantilal Chandulal Parmar .. Petitioner -versus Pune Cantonment Board and anr .. Respondents Mr. J. Shekhar i/b M/s J. Shekhar & Co., for the petitiner Mr. K.J. Presswala for Respondent No.l. Mr. S.Rajguru with Mr N.R.Prajapati for Union of India. CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE & R. G. KETKAR JJ (Vacation Court). DATED: 19th May, 2009. P.C. 1. On May l9, 2009, we heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons to follow, the petition was dismissed. 2. Now, we give reasons in support of the said order. 2 3. The petitioner challenges the order dated April 2, 2009, passed by the Appellate Authority in an appeal filed u/s 274 of the Cantonment Board Act, l924. The petitioner also prayed for stay of the notice dated June l2, 2006 issued u/s l85 (1) of the said Act. 4. The Petitioner submitted repairs/renovation plan to the Cantonment Board for approval on February 27, 2006. The plan was returned by the Cantonment Board on February 28, 2006, on the ground that it was incomplete. A preliminary notice was issued by C.E.O. Cantonment Board on May 22, 2006, directing the petitioner to remove unauthorized construction commenced by him and to resubmit plan for sanction. Under resolution No.55 dated May 29, 2006, the Cantonment Board rejected the plan and the petitioner was informed accordingly. The Cantonment Board issued notice on June 12, 2006, through C.E.O calling upon the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized construction of approximately l250 Sq. feet. Since the additional construction came to the notice of Cantonment Board, 3 notice for demolition of the same was issued by the CEO, Cantonment Board on October 5, 2006. The petitioner preferred appeals against the notices dated June l2, 2006 and October 5, 2006. In accordance with the directions of the GOC-in-C, a committee was constituted. The committee after going through the record visited the site and came to the conclusion that the petitioner commenced construction on site and continued with the construction activity despite receiving various notices from the Cantonment Board and new construction was completed as a modern structure with all amenities and is occupied . The committee also recorded that the construction done by the petitioner is not repairs/renovation. It is new construction carried out after demolishing two of the out-houses which existed on the North and North East side of the property. 5. The Appellate Authority considered the report of the independent committee and also heard advocate of the petitioner. It observed that the advocate for the petitioner admitted that the construction carried out was 4 without approval of plan and the said construction was carried out in anticipation of approval of the plan. In the light of the record before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. It is against this order, the present petition is filed. 6. We have heard Shri. J. Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.J.Presswala, for the first respondent. It is undisputed fact that the construction carried out by the petitioner was without permission from the authorities of the Cantonment Board. In fact this was conceded before the Appellate Authority. After going through the report of the Committee, we are more than satisfied that the petitioner proceeded to complete construction despite having received notices from the Cantonment Board. Though the proposal was submitted seeking permission for repairs/renovation, the petitioner has carried out new construction altogether. 5 7. In view of this, we do not find any substance in the petition and the same is dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)