# Suresh Bansal & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 75
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-21
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 30909 of 2014
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari, Raghvendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-bansal-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-43461
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Rejection of
application-to
sanction
map
without
assigning any reason-held-unsustainablerecording
reasons
when
necessary
explained.
Held: Para-9
No doubt, the concerns of the security of
the country is supreme, but the petitioner,
as a citizen of this country, in the least is
entitled for a reasoned order, in case, his
claim was liable to be rejected. Though, the
respondent authorities have tried to justify
the rejection by setting out some reasons in
the counter affidavit, but it is well settled
that the reasons should be reflected from
the order and no amount of reasons
supplemented in the affidavits filed during
judicial review of the action, can justify the
same.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1952 SC 16; (1978) 1 SCC 405; (2013) 10
SCC 95

## Text

1 All. Suresh Bansal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
75
legal remedy which may be available to it
under the agreement for the said purpose.
12. With these observations, the writ
petition is allowed.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAGHVENDRA KUMAR, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 30909 of 2014
Suresh Bansal & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
M.D. Singh "Shekhar", B.P. Verma
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Rajesh Tripathi, Fuzail Ahmand
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Rejection of
application-to
sanction
map
without
assigning any reason-held-unsustainablerecording
reasons
when
necessary
explained.
Held: Para-9
No doubt, the concerns of the security of
the country is supreme, but the petitioner,
as a citizen of this country, in the least is
entitled for a reasoned order, in case, his
claim was liable to be rejected. Though, the
respondent authorities have tried to justify
the rejection by setting out some reasons in
the counter affidavit, but it is well settled
that the reasons should be reflected from
the order and no amount of reasons
supplemented in the affidavits filed during
judicial review of the action, can justify the
same.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1952 SC 16; (1978) 1 SCC 405; (2013) 10
SCC 95
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)
1. Heard Shri B.P. Verma, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh
Tripathi for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
2. Petitioners have approached this
Court challenging the letter dated 15th
March, 2014 communicated to him by the
office of the City Magistrate, Mathura
that Military authorities have refused to
grant
No
Objection
Certificate
for
construction of multi-storied building
adjacent to A-1 defence land.
3. Petitioners claiming to be
bhoomidhar of plot nos. 228, 229, 230,
231, 234 and 235 situate in Gram
Narhauli, Tehsil Sadar, District Mathura
after seeking a declaration under Section
143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which
was duly granted vide order dated 20th
June, 2003, started some constructions
over the said land, which was objected by
the officers of the Station Headquarter,
Mathura Cantt. and they forcibly stopped
the construction for want of No Objection
Certificate from the army authorities.
Petitioners made an application dated
27.10.2011 before the City Magistrate for
obtaining No Objection Certificate from
the Station Headquarter, Mathura Cantt.
in accordance with the guidelines issued
by the Government of India, Ministry of
Defence dated 18th May, 2011.
4. However, when no decision was
taken despite various communication and
letters, the petitioners approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No. 37904 of
2013, which was disposed of vide order
dated 16.07.2013 requiring the petitioner
to make a fresh representation before the
competent authority, who in turn, was
directed to take appropriate decision with
76
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
all expedition, preferably within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of the
application. Still when no decision was
taken, the petitioner was compelled to file a
Contempt Application No. 6192 of 2013,
which was also disposed of giving one more
opportunity to the authorities to take decision
in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner was
informed vide impugned order dated 15th
March, 2014 addressed to the
City
Magistrate that Military authorities have not
agreed to grant No Objection Certificate for
construction of multi-storied building on
account of the fact that the land on which the
building was proposed to be constructed, was
adjacent to A-1 defence land.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
contends that the order is bad in law
inasmuch as it does not record any reason for
rejecting the claim of No Objection
Certificate to the petitioners. He further
points out that it was categorically brought to
the notice of the authorities that the plot in
dispute over which the construction is sought
to be raised by the petitioner, is surrounded
by residential colony on western side and a
market on the northern side, and on the
southern side, there is a railway line. He
further points out that the authorities were
duly informed by the petitioners that they do
not intend to raise any multi-storied
construction, but only ground and first floor
are to be constructed and without considering
these aspect of the matter, the No Objection
Certificate has been refused.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondent-authorities stating that
the khasra plot no. 236, which is A-1
defence land, is being managed by local
Military authorities for the purpose of
Army, i.e., training activities, control of
vehicle
movement,
establishing
of
communication, attachments alongwith
equipments and loading/unloading of
military stores as a part of Ordinance
Depot
Unit
during
operations
and
mobilization for war. It is further alleged
that the land is kept barren being camping
ground for accretion forces for Northern
and Western sector in war. The counter
affidavit further refers to a policy decision
taken by the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India for issuing No
Objection Certificate.
7. A perusal of the policy enclosed
as Annexure 2 to the counter affidavit
goes to show that same was issued in
order to strike a balance between the
security concerns of the forces and the
right
of
public
to
undertake
the
construction activities on their land. The
relevant provisions of the said policy are
quoted hereunder.
"(a) In places where local municipal
laws require consultation with the Station
Commander before a building plan is
approved, the Station Commander may
convey its views after seeking approval
from next higher authority not below the
rank of Brigadier or equivalent within
four months of receipt of such requests or
within the specified period, if any,
required by law. Objection/views/NOC
will
be
conveyed
only
to
State
Government agencies or to Municipal
authorities, and under no circumstances
shall be conveyed to builders/private
parties.
(b) Where the local municipal laws
do not so require, yet the Station
Commander feels that any construction
coming up within 100 meter (for
multistorey building of more than four
storeys the distance shall be 500 meters)
radius of defence establishment can be a
security hazard, it should refer the matter
1 All. Suresh Bansal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
77
immediately to its next higher authority in
the chain of its command. In case the next
higher authority is also so convinced, then
the Station Commander may convey its
objection/view to the local municipality
or State Government agencies. In case,
the municipal authority/State Government
do not take cognizance of the said
objection, then the matter may be taken
up with higher authorities, if need be
through AHQ/MoD.
(c) Objection/view/NOC shall not be
given by any authority other than Station
Commander to the local municipality or
State Government agencies and shall not
be
given
directly
to
private
parties/builders under any circumstances.
(d) NOC once issued will not be
withdrawn without the approval of the
Service Hqrs."
8. A perusal of the impugned order
goes to show that it does not record any
reason for rejecting the No Objection
Certificate nor there is any material to
indicate that provisions of the Policy
quoted hereinabove, were followed while
considering
the
application
of
the
petitioner for No Objection Certificate.
9.
No doubt, the concerns of the
security of the country is supreme, but the
petitioner, as a citizen of this country, in the
least is entitled for a reasoned order, in case,
his claim was liable to be rejected. Though,
the respondent authorities have tried to justify
the rejection by setting out some reasons in
the counter affidavit, but it is well settled that
the reasons should be reflected from the order
and no amount of reasons supplemented in the
affidavits filed during judicial review of the
action, can justify the same.
10. Reference may be made to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Commissioner of Police Vs.
Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16,
wherein it was held as under.
"9. ... public orders, publicly made,
in exercise of a statutory authority cannot
be construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making
the order of what he meant, or of what
was in his mind, or what he intended to
do. Public orders made by public
authorities are meant to have public effect
and are intended to affect the actings and
conduct of those to whom they are
addressed
and
must
be
construed
objectively with reference to the language
used in the order itself."
11. This proposition has been quoted
with approval in para 8 by a Constitution
Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief
Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC
405, wherein Krishna Iyer, J. has stated as
follows:
"8. The second equally relevant
matter is that when a statutory functionary
makes an order based on certain grounds,
its validity must be judged by the reasons
so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit
or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in
the beginning may, by the time it comes
to court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later
brought out."
12. In the case of Rashmi Metaliks
Limited & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Metropolitan
Development Authority & Ors., (2013) 10
SCC 95, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
during
judicial
review
of
an
administrative action, the order must be
examined with reference to the grounds
set out in the order itself and not with
78
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reference to any fresh ground brought out
subsequently and a ground not adopted or
expressed in the impugned administrative
order, cannot be sought to be raised to
justify its validity.
13. In such view of the matter, in
our considered opinion, the impugned
order
being
cryptic
and
without
containing reason on which the decision is
predicated, is not liable to be sustained.
As a result, the writ petition succeeds and
stands allowed.
14.
The impugned order dated 15th
March, 2014 is hereby set aside. The
respondent authorities are directed to
reconsider the application of the petitioner
for grant of No Objection Certificate afresh
in accordance with the provisions of the
Policy dated 18th May, 2011 by passing a
reasoned order expeditiously, preferably
within a period of six weeks from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
15. However, in the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no orders as
to costs.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.
Application U/S 482 No. 37202 of 2015
Rahul & Anr.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Appellants:
Anoop Trivedi
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.
Cr.P.C. Section 482-Trail Court closed the
evidence-as
the
defence
counsel
withdraw himself from conducting the
case-consequently the witness-could not
be cross examined-on request to engage
another counsel- 2days adjournment
given-certainly a very short time for new
counsel to prepare himself to cross
examined the witness-which resulted
complete miscarriage of justice, principle
of Natural Justice and constitutional
right of fair trail stand defeated-order
quashed with necessary direction.
Held: Para-5
It also does not appear to be a disputed
fact that the counsel who had been
conducting the trial was no more
counsel in the case because of his own
refusal or because of the withdrawal of
the instructions by the applicants. In
such a situation, the opportunity of two
days time to engage the new counsel to
cross examine the witness and conduct
the trial does not appear to be an
adequate opportunity. It cannot be said
with any justification that in such a
short time even if a new counsel was
engaged he could have prepared the
case and do justice with the trial of
murder. In such circumstances, in order
to arrive at the ends of justice and in
order to meet and fulfill the vital
requirements of equity and in order to
ensure a fair trial, this Court feels
inclined to direct that the trial court
should fix some date and call the
aforesaid witness to be cross examined
by the accused.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J.)
1.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed for setting aside the order
dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Sessions
Judge, Meerut by which the Application
No. 47 Kha, under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
has been rejected by the court below
denying the opportunity to the applicants
to
cross
examine
P.W.11
Meenu.