Lekh Raj Singh vs Uoi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2876 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+       CM No.6220/2010 in W.P.(C) No.9450/2009

                                         Date of Decision: 01st June, 2010

        LEKH RAJ SINGH                   ..... Petitioner
                           Through Mr. V.K. Sharma, Adv.

                     versus

        UOI & ORS.                 ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)

CM No.6220/2010

1. The petitioner had filed the writ petition complaining non-disposal of a

petition filed by him under Section 154(2) of the Army Act laying a

challenge to the findings and sentence of the Summary Court Martial. The

writ petition was disposed of by an order passed on 29 th May, 2009 directing

the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the said petition after due

consideration, if not already done so, within a period of four weeks from the

date of the passing of the order.

2. Along with the present application, the petitioner has enclosed a copy

of the communication dated 27th May, 2009 enclosing the order which was

passed by the Chief of the Army Staff on the petition under Section 164(2)

of the Army Act which has been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, so far as

CM No.6220/2010 in WP (C) No.9450/2009 Page No.1 the compliance with the order dated 29th May, 2009 is concerned, the same

has been effected.

3. By way of the present application, the applicant makes a grievance

that the respondents have failed to consider a petition made by him and

have therefore not complied with the order dated 29th May, 2009.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the

petitioner has subsequently submitted a petition dated nil of July, 2009 to

the Secretary of the Government of India purporting to be a second petition

under Section 164(2) of the Army Act. On this petition, the respondents, by

a letter dated 3rd of September, 2009, have informed the petitioner that the

remedy under Section 164(2) was available only once and that the

petitioner has already availed the same. The petitioner was informed that

he could file a petition under Section 179 of the Army Act.

The communication dated 3rd September, 2009 of the respondents

clearly explains the correct legal position.

5. The petition under Section 164(2) stands rejected by the order

communicated on 27th of May, 2009. The grievance of the petitioner so far

as the subject matter of the order dated 29th of May, 2009 does not subsist

and the present application is wholly misconceived.

6. In case the petitioner proceeds in the matter in accordance with law

and seeks to file a petition under Section 179 of the Army Act as suggested

in the communication dated 3rd September, 2009, it shall be open to the

respondents to consider the same in accordance with law and prescribed

procedure.

7. We make it clear that such petition and orders passed thereon cannot

be made the subject matter of consideration in the present writ petition and

no application should be entertained by the Registry on this account.

CM No.6220/2010 in WP (C) No.9450/2009 Page No.2

8. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the action and orders of the

respondents on such petition, the same gives rise to separate independent

cause of action.

This application is disposed of in the above terms.

GITA MITTAL, J

INDERMEET KAUR, J JUNE 01, 2010 aa

CM No.6220/2010 in WP (C) No.9450/2009 Page No.3