Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Abtar Raj – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenging aft's review order. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's observations on urgency due to superannuation. (Para 5 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. arguments and outcomes regarding the review process. (Para 6 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. aft must decide on merits, uninfluenced by prior findings. (Para 14) |
ORDER
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
CMs No.17996/2021, 17997/2021 and 17998/2021 (all for exemption).
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5742/2021 & CM No.17995/2021 (for interim direction).
3. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 24th May, 2021 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowing Review Application No.10/2021 filed by the respondents Indian Army and recalling the order dated 1st February, 2021 allowing OA No.1353/2020 filed by the petitioner and posting the said OA for consideration on 26th July, 2021, after giving an opportunity to the respondents to file an additional affidavit.
4. The counsel for the respondents Indian Army along with Major Katoch and Major Mahendra of the respondents Indian Army, appear on advance notice.
5. We
The court established that procedural fairness requires a party to have a full opportunity to present their case, without being bound by prior prejudicial findings during ongoing proceedings.
The High Court may dismiss petitions rendered moot by subsequent actions, allowing parties to seek remedies in appropriate forums.
Authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice and provide opportunities for hearing in quasi-judicial proceedings, especially in review applications.
The court affirmed that jurisdiction over General Court Martial lies with the Armed Forces Tribunal, and unchallenged prior decisions necessitate adherence to established legal processes.
Interim orders on promotions pending adjudication of an application must ensure timely resolution, especially when retirement is imminent.
A review application requires specific justifiable grounds, such as errors apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be based on subsequent developments or changes in law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
