Sh. Bharat Bhushan vs Union Of India And Others on 24 July, 2026

    0
    8
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court

    Sh. Bharat Bhushan vs Union Of India And Others on 24 July, 2026

                                                                        Sr. No. 173
    
             HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                              AT JAMMU
    
    Case No:- WP( C) No.2225/2026
              CM No.4803/2026                         Pronounced on: 24.07.2026
                                                        Uploaded on: 27.07.2026
    
    Sh. Bharat Bhushan                                                .... Petitioner(s)
    
                          Through: Mr.Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
                                   Mr. Ankit Kochhar, Advocate.
    
                    Vs
    Union of India and Others.                                        ..... Respondent(s)
    
                          Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
                                   Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate for respondent
                                   Nos.1 to 5.
                                   None for respondent No.6.
    Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
    
                                         ORDER
    

    1. The petitioner, who was initially elected as a Member of the Cantonment

    Board from Ward No.07, came to be nominated as a Member of the

    SPONSORED

    Board by Notification dated 12.11.2021. His nomination was initially for

    a period of one year and was thereafter extended annually. Subsequently,

    vide Notification dated 12.11.2025, the petitioner was again nominated

    as a Member of the Board; however, unlike the earlier notifications, no

    specific tenure was prescribed therein. The grievance of the petitioner is

    directed against Notification dated 15.07.2026, whereby he has been

    substituted by respondent No. 6 as a nominated Member of the Board.

    2. Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned

    notification is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the

    Cantonments Act, 2006. It is contended that Section 34(4) of the Act

    mandates that no member of the Board shall be removed under sub-

    sections (1) or (2) without being afforded a reasonable opportunity of
    showing cause against such removal. According to the petitioner, the Act

    does not distinguish between an elected member and a nominated

    member insofar as the requirement of affording an opportunity prior to

    removal is concerned. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner could not

    have been replaced without complying with the statutory mandate.

    3. Per contra, ld. DSGI appearing for the respondents submits that the

    impugned action is neither arbitrary nor actuated by mala fides. It is

    argued that the petitioner has not been singled out for replacement and

    that, by Notifications S.R.O. 17(E) and S.R.O. 18(E), both dated

    15.07.2026, several other nominated members of various other

    Cantonment Board have also been replaced in a similar manner. It is

    further contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner, being

    merely a nominated member of the Board, has no vested or indefeasible

    right to continue in office. His nomination, initially made in the year

    2021, had been extended from year to year, and he has remained on the

    Board for more than four years. In the absence of any allegation or

    material demonstrating mala fides or arbitrariness, the decision of the

    Government to nominate respondent No. 6 in his place is not amenable

    to judicial interference.

    4. Meeting the petitioner’s reliance upon Section 34(4) of the Act, ld. DSGI

    submits that nomination to the Board is held at the pleasure of the

    Central Government and that replacement of a nominated member in

    exercise of such power cannot be equated with punitive removal

    attracting the safeguards contained in Section 34(4). It is submitted that

    the impugned notification is a consequence of a general policy decision

    Page 2 of 4 WP(C ) No.2225/2026 & CM No.4803/2026
    to reconstitute the nominated members of the Board and does not

    disclose any hostile discrimination against the petitioner.

    5. Learned DSGI seeks time to file a detailed reply to the writ petition.

    6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner presses for interim

    protection on the ground that respondent No. 6 is likely to assume office

    forthwith and, if such assumption of office is not interdicted, the

    petitioner would suffer irreparable prejudice and the writ petition itself

    may be rendered infructuous.

    7. Having heard the counsel for the parties and considered the material

    available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is presently

    serving only as a nominated member of the Board. It is not disputed that

    his initial nomination made in the year 2021 was extended periodically

    on an annual basis. Although the notification dated 12.11.2025 did not

    specify any fixed tenure, the petitioner did not challenge the said

    notification or seek clarification regarding the duration of his

    continuation. Prima facie, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim an

    indefeasible right to continue as a nominated member merely because no

    period was specified in the last notification.

    8. The reliance placed upon Section 34(4) of the Cantonments Act also

    does not, at this interlocutory stage, persuade this Court to grant interim

    relief. The petitioner has not been able to establish, prima facie, that his

    substitution by another nominated member amounts to a removal within

    the meaning of Section 34(4), particularly when his nomination itself

    was temporary in nature and subject to extension by the competent

    authority. The petitioner has also failed to plead or demonstrate any mala

    fides or arbitrariness in the decision-making process. On the contrary,

    Page 3 of 4 WP(C ) No.2225/2026 & CM No.4803/2026
    the material placed before the Court indicates that several other

    nominated members have likewise been replaced by notifications issued

    on the same date.

    9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner

    has failed to establish a prima facie case warranting grant of interim

    relief. The balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour, nor is

    any irreparable injury made out so as to justify staying the operation of

    the impugned notification at this stage.

    10. Accordingly, the prayer for interim relief is declined. However, in order

    to preserve the subject matter of the writ petition, it is directed that the

    nomination of respondent No. 6 shall remain subject to the final outcome

    of the present writ petition.

    11. CM No. 4803/2026 stands disposed of accordingly.

    12. List for filing of response of respondents on 31.08.2026.

    ( SANJAY PARIHAR )
    JUDGE
    Jammu
    24.07.2026
    Narinder

    Whether the order is speaking? Yes
    Whether the order is reportable?No

    Narinder Kumar
    2026.07.27 13:28
    I attest to the accuracy and
    Page 4 of 4 WP(C ) No.2225/2026 & CM No.4803/2026
    integrity of this document



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here