PUNE CANTONMENT BOARD AND ANR. versus M.P.J. BUILDERS AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 09-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PUNE CANTONMENT BOARD AND ANR. 
v. 
M.P.J. BUILDERS AND ANR. 
AUGUST 9, 1996 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Cantonments Act, 1924 : 
Sections 52 and 183-A-Co11stn1ctio11 of building-Peiiod of comple-
C tio11--E.xtension of-Granted by Board-GOC-i11-Chief suspe11ded Board's 
decisio11 absolutely-High Court allowed petitio11 filed by builder-Held: 
Board should grant extension after application of mind having regard to 
relevant facts-Board took decision mecha11ical/y and arbitraiily-Hence, 
GOC-in-Chief was justified in suspending decision taken by Board-High 
Court not justified in ime1fering with order of GOC-in Chief-Constitutio11 of 
D India, 1950, A11icle 226. 
Section 183-A-Peiiod for completion of co11stiuction of build-
in[j-Specified by Board-No11-completion withi11 that period-Effect 
of-Held: sanction lapsed-Fresh sanction required for continuing constnic-
E tion unless extensio11 of period was granted by Board. 
Section 183-A provisr:r-Effect of-Constniction of bui/din[j-Saizction 
of-Period of completion of building-Extension of-Held: must be in con-
tinuity of sanctioned period-Could not be granted more than twice-PelTllis-
sible two extensions could not exceed two years because of proviso-Thus 
F total extension of time could not be beyond two year:.-Application for 
exte11sion made after two years liable to be rejected-Only course ope11 in such 
situation was to seek fresh sanction-Even this fresh sa11ction could not be 
granted if additional restrictions regarding co11stn1ction of building were im-. 
posed meanwhile. 
G 
The respondent was granted sanction for construction of a building, 
under Section 181 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The period for completion 
of the building was fixed as one year. The construction of the building was 
neither completed nor was any extension of time sought within that period. 
Two years later the respondent made an application for extension of time. 
H The report of the officer of the Cantonment Board clearly showed that the 
512 
) 
PUNE CANTONMENT BD. '" M.P J. BUILDERS 
513 
construction of the building had not commenced till than and the only A 
thing done was some excavation work. In the meantime certain changes 
had been made in the building bye-laws imposing additional restrictions. 
All subsequent building sanctions had to be granted thereafter subject to 
these additional restrictions. In spite of these restrictions the Cantonment 
Executive Officer (CEO) b'l"anted extension of time for completion of work 
for a further period of one year without assigning any reason. the GOC-
in-Chief in exercise of his powers under Section 52(l)(b) of the Act 
suspended the CEO's order and issued a show cause notice to the Canton-
ment Board as well as to the respondent to show cause why the suspension 
order be not made absolute. After hearing the parties, the GOC-in-Chief, 
B 
by order under Section 52(2)(c) of the Act made the suspension order C 
absolute. The GOC-in-Chiel' took the view that permitting the construction 
of a building which had not till then begun would flagrantly violate the 
building restrictions which had come into force by then. 
A writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court D 
setting aside the order of the GOC-in-Chief. Aggrieved by the High Court's 
judgment the appellants preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The exercise of the statutory power of grant of extension 
of time under Section 183-A of the Cantonments Act, 1924 is not mechani-
E 
cal or automatic and requires a decision to be taken on application of mind 
with reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The 
Cantonment Executive Officer (CEO) should have considered all the 
relevant facts and circumstances of the present case before he came to the F 
conclusion that extension of that period was called for particularly, when 
no construction of the building hat! been commenced till then and addi-
tional restrictions had been imposed meanwhile according to which such 
a building sanction could not be granted if the matter were to be CtJn-
sidered for grant of a fresh sanction contemplated under Section 183-A. 
Even if the additional restrictions were to apply prospectively to the grant G 
of a fresh sanction thereafter, this was a relevant circumstance to be 
considered while deciding to grant extension of that period even in this 
case. The total non-consideration of any relevant fact by the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.