ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 12-5-2005, passed by the General Court-Martial rejecting his objections about violation of Rules 180,22,23 and 24 of the Army Rules, 1954 (for short 'Rules') The petitioner is a Major in Indian Army. His brother late Sepoy Hawa Singh was member of 9th JAT Regiment. The said Hawa Singh sacrificed his life in the war of 1971. According to the petitioner, after getting permission from all concerned he submitted an application to the District Administration of State of M.P. at Sagar for allotment of land for the immortalization of sacrifice of his brother Hawa Singh. The said request was allowed by the Revenue Authorities of Sagar. He alleges that on the basis of some false and fictitious complaints, a Court of Inquiry was conducted against him. The petitioner contends that the Court of inquiry was conducted in gross violation of mandatory provision of Rule 180 of the Rules. Despite various illegalities, no evidence could be collected in the Court of Inquiry against him, therefore, no further action was recommended by the Court of Inquiry. In spite of this, a tentative charge-sheet was issued against him and summary of evidence was ordered in violation of Rule 22 of the Rules. The petitioner further contends that the summary of evidence was conducted in gross violation of Rule 23 and no effective opportunity of hearing was given to him and the mandatory provisions of law were violated. Feeling aggrieved by the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, proceedings of hearing of charge and the summary of evidence, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3219/2004 on the ground that the said proceedings have been carried out and concluded in gross violation of Rules 179,180,181, 22 and 23 of the Rules and sought for its quashment. In the said writ petition, the petitioner contended that the Commanding Officer had given no opportunity of defence to him and admitted the written statement of Col. S.B. Chavan in evidence without affording opportunity of cross-examining him. It was also contended that the written statement submitted by S.C. Arya was not accepted and admitted by the commanding officer in evidence causing substantial prejudice to him. In the said writ petition the petitioner challenged the entire proceedings initiated and conducted against him and sought quashment of those proceedings. S.B. Chavan in evidence without affording opportunity of cross-examining him. It was also contended that the written statement submitted by S.C. Arya was not accepted and admitted by the commanding officer in evidence causing substantial prejudice to him. In the said writ petition the petitioner challenged the entire proceedings initiated and conducted against him and sought quashment of those proceedings. However, instead of quashing the said proceedings the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27-4-2005 by observing thus: 34. "True it is, in some cases the Apex Court had interfered with before a person was dealt with in the court-martial. What is highlighted by Mr. Mishra is that there has been infraction of Rules 180, 22, 23, and 24 of the Rules and such violation warrants interference by this Court at this stage and the court-martial is to be quashed. Per contra submission of Mrs. Nair is that the inquiry under Rule 180 is a preliminary fact finding inquiry and the charges have been framed and if there are any infirmities that can be highlighted by the petitioner during the hearing of the Court-martial or at the stage of confirmation or after confirmation. To appreciate the hub of the controversy, I have perused the file produced by the respondents. Upon perusal of the files I am inclined to think that the cause of justice would be best subserve if the documents which have been sought for by the petitioner are supplied to him on his submitting an application indicating such documents which he wants. Be it noted, in course of hearing a query was made from Mrs. Indira Nair, learned senior counsel, who has fairly submitted after obtaining instructions that if such an application is filed by the petitioner indicating the documents he wants the same shall be provided to the petitioner to putforth his case in accordance with law in the field but the said direction should not be treated as a precedent in the case. Keeping in view the aforesaid conclusion I am inclined to direct that if the petitioner files an application for getting necessary documents which form a part of the proceeding the same shall be supplied to him at the earliest and, thereafter, the petitioner shall be heard in the Court-martial proceeding to putforth his case. Keeping in view the aforesaid conclusion I am inclined to direct that if the petitioner files an application for getting necessary documents which form a part of the proceeding the same shall be supplied to him at the earliest and, thereafter, the petitioner shall be heard in the Court-martial proceeding to putforth his case. The authority conducting the Court-martial shall appreciate the submissions raised by the petitioner keeping in view the judgments and decisions referred to above so that the authority will be well guided both in fact as well as in law. The exercise in this regard shall positively be completed within a period of four weeks. Thus by aforesaid order, instead of interfering in the matter, this Court directed the authority conducting the Court-Martial to hear the petitioner and take decision on the petitioner's grievance keeping in view the various judgment on the points involved in the matter. The said order was not challenged further by the petitioner, instead pursuant to the aforesaid order, he submitted his objections to the tenability of Court of Inquiry, framing of charge and summary of evidence. The said objections were replied by the prosecution. Thereafter, the third respondent (General Court Martial) by order dated 12-5-2005 rejected the objections of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the order dated 12-5-2005 passed by the third respondent (General Court Martial) is in complete violation of the order dated 27-4-2005 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3219/2004 by the Court. The petitioner also contends that the third respondent did not decide the issues, as directed by this Court by order dated 27-4-2005 as the decisions referred to in the said order were not gone into and dealt with but the third respondent merely reproduced it, in its order. The petitioner also contends that the third respondent dealt with only few violations alleged by him and ignored number of major violations specifically pointed out in his legal objection. In the circumstances, he prays that the order dated 12-5-2005 and also the proceedings of Court of Inquiry, charge framed and summary of evidence be quashed. The petitioner also contends that the third respondent dealt with only few violations alleged by him and ignored number of major violations specifically pointed out in his legal objection. In the circumstances, he prays that the order dated 12-5-2005 and also the proceedings of Court of Inquiry, charge framed and summary of evidence be quashed. The respondents contend that the petitioner has filed this petition on 20-5-2005 against order dated 12-5-2005 without disclosing the fact that the General Court-Martial proceedings have already been concluded on 16-5-2005 and he has been awarded punishment of cashiering with sentence of three years R.I. and in the circumstances the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. The respondents further contend that the proceedings of General Court-Martial having been concluded on 16-5-2005, the challenge to the proceedings dated 12-5-2005 of General Court-Martial is meaningless and the petition has rendered infructuous. They also contend that the petitioner has got alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal, firstly by way of pre-confirmation petition u/s 164(1) of the Army Act, 1950 ('Act' for short) and again by way of post-confirmation petition u/s 164(2) of the Act, even thereafter there is remedy available for the petitioner u/s 165 of the Act by way of filing representation to the Central Government (Chief of Army Staff). In the circumstances, they contend that the petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Supporting the order dated 12-5-2005 passed by the third respondent, the respondents contend that the said order has been passed after taking into consideration all the objections raised by the petitioner, and if the petitioner is aggrieved by it, it is open for him to challenge the orders dated 12-5-2005 and also order dated 16-5-2005 before the appellate authority. As regards allegations about violation of rules in the proceedings of Court of Inquiry, framing of charge and summary of evidence, the respondents denied the petitioner's allegation that he was not granted liberty to cross-examine the witnesses or that there is any violation of provisions of rules. They contend that the petitioner was granted full opportunity during the Court of Inquiry, framing of charge, summary of evidence and in Court-Martial and there is no violation of the rules. They contend that the petitioner was granted full opportunity during the Court of Inquiry, framing of charge, summary of evidence and in Court-Martial and there is no violation of the rules. Replying the aforesaid contention of the respondents, the petitioner contends that availability of alternative remedy is no bar to entertain a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In support the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 4430/1997 in the case of R.P. Dwivedi and Ors. v. Chief of the Army Staff and Ors. decided on 3-7-1998. It is also contended that the petitioner has no remedy against the order dated 12-5-2005. The said order dated 12-5-2005 having been passed contrary to the directions given by this Court, the petitioner has rightly approached this Court in this petition. On the question of violation of Rules, 180, 22 and 23 of the Rules the Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions which were raised before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3219/2004. Having considered the rival contentions I find that in spite of various grounds urged by the petitioner about validity of the said proceedings the said Writ Petition (S) No. 3219/2004 was disposed of by this Court by giving directions to the authorities that the petitioner shall be heard in the Court-Martial proceedings and the authority conducting the Court-Martial shall appreciate the submissions raised by the petitioner keeping in view the judgments and decisions referred to in the order so that the authority will be well guided both in fact as well as in law. After this order, the petitioner approached to the authority conducting the Court-Martial and submitted his objections. The said authority on consideration of the petitioner's objection was of the view that the objections are not tenable. It is also worthwhile to mention that after rejecting the petitioner's objections, the third respondent has also passed order on 16-5-2005 punishing and sentencing the petitioner as aforesaid. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. It is open for the petitioner to assail the orders dated 12-5-2005 and 16-5-2005, in the appeal provided u/s 164 of the Act. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that against the order dated 12-5-2005 there is no remedy of appeal. It is open for the petitioner to assail the orders dated 12-5-2005 and 16-5-2005, in the appeal provided u/s 164 of the Act. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that against the order dated 12-5-2005 there is no remedy of appeal. In this regard, Section 164 of the Act is very clear, Section 164 of the Act is extracted for ready reference: 164. Remedy against order, finding or sentence of court-martial. (1) Any person subject to this Act who considers himself aggrieved by any order passed by any court-martial may present a petition to the officer or authority empowered to confirm any finding or sentence of such court-martial, and the confirming authority may take such steps as may be considered necessary to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed or as to the regularity of any proceedings to which the order relates. (2) Any person subject to this Act who considers himself aggrieved by a finding or sentence of any court-martial which has been confirmed, may present a petition to the Central Government, [the Chief of the Army Staff] or any prescribed officer superior in command to the one who confirmed such finding or sentence, and the Central Government, [the Chief of Army Staff] or other officer, as the case may be, may pass such orders thereon as it or he thinks fit. True it is that availability of the alternative remedy is not always a bar to entertain a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and in appropriate cases this Court has jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. However, in my considered view, having regard to the controversy involved in the matter this is not a fit case in which interference is warranted in spite of the fact that there is alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 4430/1997, R.P. Dwivedi and Ors. (supra) has no application to the facts of this case as in the case of R.P. Dwivedi the violation of Rule 180 was not in dispute and the proceedings of the Court-Martial were barred by time. Such is not the position in this case. The alleged violation of Rules is seriously disputed by the respondents. (supra) has no application to the facts of this case as in the case of R.P. Dwivedi the violation of Rule 180 was not in dispute and the proceedings of the Court-Martial were barred by time. Such is not the position in this case. The alleged violation of Rules is seriously disputed by the respondents. On earlier occasion also on the same ground the writ petition was filed and no interference was made by this Court except directing the authority conducting the Court Martial to hear and decide the petitioner's objection. It is also pertinent to note that when this petition was filed the petitioner was already served with the order of the Court-Martial dated 16-5-2005, yet he did not disclose this fact. It is the duty of the party who comes to the Court to disclose all the facts which are relevant and material for the adjudication of the matter. Thus even if the petitioner was challenging only the order dated 12-5-2005 it was his bounden duty to disclose in this writ petition that the order of Court-Martial has been passed on 16-5-2005. Be that as it may. The petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal provided u/s 164 of the Act, and all the grounds raised before the third respondent and in this writ petition can be raised and gone into the said appeal and the Appellate Authority being empowered to consider all such objections and decide the same, no interference is warranted in this writ petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. As a consequence of dismissal of the petition, the interim order of status-quo passed on 2-6-2005 stands vacated. No orders as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed