IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.766 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.7.2010 Union of India -----Appellant. Vs. Vikram Thakur & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Kulwant Kaur, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing as under:- “In the light of the above observations, it requires no further emphasis to observe that the proposal given on 14.11.2009 shall themselves not be put in place but the Army shall conform to the Resolution and draw up a fresh plan of actions to regulate the traffic in the manner which is permissible. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. It is clarified that if any road has been closed by virtue of the communication dated 14.11.2009 it shall be opened and any other restriction shall only be done in the manner referred to above.” L.P.A. No.766 of 2010 2. Case of the writ petitioner is that under Section 258 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (for short, “the Act”), power of closing and opening of streets was vested in the Cantonment Board and for closing a route, the Cantonment Board has to get permission of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief or the Principal Director, which can be done for security reasons by giving notice to general public and considering objections. 3. According to the writ petitioner, even though after receipt of letter dated 14.11.2009 of the Army Commandant suggesting restrictions in routes in the cantonment, the matter was considered by the Cantonment Board on 20.11.2009 in a meeting attended by the Army authorities and certain decisions were taken, the Army authorities issued directions imposing restrictions beyond the said decisions. On 8.12.2009, the District Magistrate held a meeting and decided that the Board being the only competent authority, orders of the Army authorities without the consent of the Board could not be complied with. Inspite of this, the Army authorities proceeded to take steps without the decision of the Board. 4. The writ petition was contested on behalf of the Army authorities. Stand of the Army authorities was that on account of security requirements, restrictions were required to be placed and thus, the action of the Army authorities was justified. 5. Learned Single Judge held that the Army authorities could not decide on the user of the road on their perception 2 L.P.A. No.766 of 2010 unless the Board approves the same. Accordingly, it was directed as under:- “..... I have no doubt in my mind that the Army cannot decide on the user of the road by its perception of how security shall be managed by any unilateral decision. The letter dated 14.11.2009, which is imposed in the writ petition does not require to be quashed, for it was but an expression of security perception by an Army official, and how it shall be put in place which was addressed to the Cantonment Board, on basis of which the Board has passed a resolution outlined above. The Army shall, hereafter do what was resolved at the meeting of the Board and take appropriate action in an active collaboration with the members of the Board. The restrictions that could govern the public movement shall conform to a T on the mutually agreed formula. It shall be the joint endeavour of the Army with the Cantonment Board to carry out the resolutions, with no scope for one upmanship of one over the other.” 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that action of the Army authorities was justified on account of security requirements. 8. We are unable to accept the submission. There is no doubt that security requirements have to be given utmost importance but the statutory scheme clearly shows that the Cantonment Board has to take the final decision on the issue of putting restrictions on use of roads. The Cantonment Board 3 L.P.A. No.766 of 2010 comprises of Officer Commanding of the Army, District Magistrate, Chief Executive Officer, Health Officer, Executive Engineer, three Military Officers and eight elected members (Section 12(2) of the Act). There being, thus, sufficient representation of Army authorities, it cannot be assumed that the Cantonment Board will not keep in mind the security concerns. 9. There is, thus, no ground to hold that irrespective of the scheme of the Act, it is the Army authorities which could pass the orders de hors the provisions of the Act. 10. In view of above, the view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be held to be erroneous. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 06, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 4