GITA MITTAL, J

1. The petitioner has assailed the signal dated 1st December, 2012 issued by the respondents informing him that the summary proceedings initiated against him have been set aside by the competent authority with further directions for holding a General Force Court against the petitioner. The petitioner also assails the signal dated 14th December, 2011 sent by the respondents stating that the petitioner’s trial was tentatively scheduled in the second week of January, 2012.

2. The respondents purported to have exercised jurisdiction under the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992 (ITBPF Act, 1992) and the rules framed thereunder. The challenge by the petitioner rests primarily on the contention that the proposed action of the respondents was statutorily prohibited under Section 87 of the ITBPF Act inasmuch as the respondents had no authority or jurisdiction to try the petitioner for the second time, once he has been dealt with under Section 58 of the ITBPF Act, 1992.

3. To the extent necessary, the facts giving rise to the petition are briefly noticed hereafter.

4. The petitioner was enrolled in Indo Tibetan Border Police (‘ITBP’ in short) on 31st August, 198