M/S Robil Refrigeration Muthi Jammu Th Ram Pal Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Th Dg Ministry Estate Northern Command Indian Army C/O 56 Apo And Another

Held

The Court held that the respondents are directed not to interfere in the industrial unit and construction work undertaken by the petitioner to repair their industrial unit, provided that such work is carried out in accordance with the policy framed by the Ministry of Defence dated 18.05.2011 and falls within the permissible distance as stipulated by the policy. The Court acknowledged the respondents' stand and the Ministry of Defence policy, which requires consultation or objection conveyance for construction within 100 meters of a defence establishment if deemed a security hazard. The Court's decision is conditional on the petitioner adhering to the policy and the permissible distance. The petition was allowed to this extent only. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Robil Refrigeration, sought a writ of mandamus to prevent respondents (Union of India and Commanding Officer, 64 Filed Work Shop) from interfering with repair and construction work on their industrial unit. The petitioner owns land gifted in 1983, on which they established a sole proprietorship industrial unit for manufacturing/assembling refrigeration products. The unit was registered under the J&K General Sales Tax Act, 1961, CST Act, and VAT Act. The petitioner claimed the unit was damaged by recent rains and commenced repairs. The respondents, citing Ministry of Defence policy guidelines dated 18.05.2011 concerning construction within 100 meters of defence establishments, stopped the petitioner's repair work. The respondents stated the existing unit is approximately 110 meters away, but the intended construction site is within 64 meters of the workshop boundary wall, thus falling within the 100-meter radius.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents, citing Ministry of Defence policy guidelines, can interfere with the petitioner's repair and construction work on their industrial unit located within a certain distance from a defence establishment, and if so, under what conditions? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that they have exclusive ownership of the land and the industrial unit, and the respondents have no right, title, or interest in the property. They argued that the respondents interfered with necessary repair work. The petitioner relied on their property rights and the need to repair their damaged unit. Respondents' Argument: The respondents argued that the construction work intended by the petitioner is within 100 meters of the workshop boundary wall, which falls under the purview of Ministry of Defence policy guidelines dated 18.05.2011. They claimed that any construction within this radius could pose a security hazard and therefore sought to prevent it based on these policy guidelines.