Judgment

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- Heard the petitioner-in-person in support of this special leave petition. We have also perused the written submissions filed by him. We find no substance in the special leave petition.

2. The special leave petition is directed against an order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the petitioners writ petition summarily on two grounds, viz., (1) that the petitioner had approached the From the Judgment and Order dated 16-3-1984 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 827 of 1984 Supreme Court but his petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27-11-1972 reported as Harish Uppal v. Union of India1 and (2) that his petition is highly belated. Whatever may be said about the first ground, the second a ground given by the High Court is, in our opinion, perfectly justified. It cannot be said that the High Court has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or illegal manner. A few facts will make it clear.

3. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army (Artillery Regiment) in June 1965. He was in the unit which was sent to Bangladesh in connection with military operations there in December 1971. In respect of ^ certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, a court-martial was held against him at which he was found guilty and he was awarded the punishment of (a) dismissal and (b) two years rigorous imprisonment. This punishment was imposed after giving the petitioner an opportunity of pre-confirmation hearing as provided by Section 164(1) of the Army Act, 1950. The final orders imposing the said punishment were passed on 14-8-1972 and communicated to the petitioner on 3-9-1972.

4. While the petitioner was in prison, his advocate sent a post-confirmation petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act to the Government of India. The petitioner says that he received the Government of Indias reply on the said representation only on 11-11-1983 (i.e. about 11 years later), whereas respondents case is that the order rejecting the said post-confirmation petition was duly communicated to his advocate, Shri Suresh Vohra on 18-9-1973 vide ^ Letter No. 7(17)/72/D(AG-l) dated 18-9-1973. It is also stated that the petitioners elder brother filed Writ Petition No. 456 of 1972 for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in this Court seeking the release of the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 27-11-1972.

5. In 1983, the petitioner approached this Court by way of another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 12590 of 1983, which was dismissed in limine e directing the Government of India to communicate its orders upon the petitioners post-confirmation petition, if not already communicated. The petitioner says that it was only thereafter that he received the orders of the Government upon his post-confirmation petition. He then approached the Delhi High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 827 of 1984 which has been dismissed summarily as stated hereinbefore.

6. On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties before us, we are satisfied that the order rejecting the post-confirmation petition filed by the petitioner were duly communicated to him as affirmed by the Union of India in its counter-affidavit. Not only the Union of India has given the reference number and the date of the letter rejecting the said petition but has also mentioned several facts in support of its averment - and also to establish that until 1983 g the petitioner never complained of not receiving the said orders of rejection. The facts referred to in the counter-affidavit are: (a) the petitioner filed a request for an interview with the Chief of Army Staff. This request was rejected under Letter No. A/36044/PS 1-B dated 27-3-1976. In this letter also it was reiterated that the post-confirmation petition filed by the petitioner was rejected already. (Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure-I to the counter which clearly says so and also gives the reference of the letter dated 18-9-1973.) (b) On 20-4-1983 t