Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1011 (MP)

Bandana Mishra v. Union of India

2016-11-08

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2016
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 2.11.2016 passed in Appeal No.310 TRU/C8551/2/743478/P1 by the Unit Administrative Officer. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's husband Shivnandan Mishra is posted in Unit 310, TRU- Air Force Maharajpura, Gwalior since 17.6.2013 and charge sheet has been issued against him. After inquiry, it has been recommended to conduct District Court Martial. A representation was submitted against the recommendation and thereafter appeal has already been submitted to the President of India. During pendency of the appeal before President of India, respondent No.5 has issued impugned order dated 2.11.2016 to conduct the District Court Martial in respect of the petitioner's husband. In view of the order dated 2.11.2016, petitioner's husband is not permitted to leave the station. Since the petitioner being wife of Shivnandan Mishra, she is affected by the impugned order and therefore present writ petition has been filed. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition in as much as statutory efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner Under section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (herein after referred to as “Act, 2007”) and therefore petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 4. The second contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition in as much as, the charge sheet has been issued to the husband of the petitioner who is in employment of the respondents and as such the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a Layman and she does not have the knowledge of law and therefore she approached the Principal Registrar of this Court along with representation seeking redressal of her grievances. Principal Registrar of this Court had granted permission to file the writ petition and directed M. P. High Court Legal Aid Services Authority, Gwalior to look into the matter and take necessary action for prosecuting the case. Principal Registrar of this Court had granted permission to file the writ petition and directed M. P. High Court Legal Aid Services Authority, Gwalior to look into the matter and take necessary action for prosecuting the case. In turn the Legal Aid Authority had appointed Shri B.S. Bhadoriya as a counsel for the petitioner and in that capacity he has filed this writ petition and therefore the ground of alternative remedy cannot be raised at this stage when this Court had already granted permission to file writ petition. 6. A query was put by this Court and the counsel for the petitioner was asked to produce the permission/order sheets in support of his contentions made here-in-above but he was not able to produce the same. None of the documents, including representation, order sheets, if any have been filed along with writ petition to substantiate his contentions. 7. Section 14 of the Act, 2007 provides jurisdiction, powers and authorities in service matters and the same is being reproduced here in below for ready reference and convenience :- “14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters:- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority, exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts (except the Supreme Court or a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to all service matters. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any service matter may make an application to the Tribunal in such form and accompanied by such documents or other evidence and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application relating to service matters, the Tribunal shall, if satisfied after due inquiry, as it may deem necessary, that it is fit for adjudication by it, admit such application: but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may dismiss the application after recording its reasons in writing. (3) On receipt of an application relating to service matters, the Tribunal shall, if satisfied after due inquiry, as it may deem necessary, that it is fit for adjudication by it, admit such application: but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may dismiss the application after recording its reasons in writing. (4) For the purpose of adjudicating an application, the Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely :- (a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (f) reviewing its decisions; (g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte; (h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and (i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government. (5) The Tribunal shall decide both questions of law and facts that may be raised before it.” 8. From the above provision, it is clear that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing the petition before the Tribunal having its Bench at Jabalpur. 9. For the reasons stated here-in-above and looking to the fact that the petitioner has not been able to produce any order of this Court/Principal Registrar with regard to maintainability of the writ petition as submitted by him while arguing the matter and also looking to the fact that alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under section 14 of the Act, 2007. The petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. The instant writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal, Jabalpur for redressal of her grievance in accordance with law. B. S. Bhadoriya for petitioner; Shashank Indapurkar for respondents.