Back
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar Pandey – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anu Sivaraman, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge directing the 5th respondent to issue orders to discharge the 1st respondent. The learned Deputy Solicitor General has raised a specific contention that the writ petition was not maintainable before this Court since the Constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 provided an efficacious alternate remedy to the writ petitioner and that the writ petition filed without availing the said remedy, is not maintainable before this Court.
2. The learned DSGI places reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 337 to contend that when a statutory forum is specifically created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring statutory dispensation. The decision in Union of India and Others v. P.S. Gill, 2019 SCC Online SC 1519 is also relied on to contend that where an Act confers jurisdiction over service matters of Army personnel on the Armed Forces Tribunal, the Constitutional Courts should adopt an interpretation, which confers jur
Writ petitions are not maintainable when an efficacious alternate remedy exists before a specialized tribunal, emphasizing the need to respect statutory forums.
Point of Law : No person has a right of appeal against the final order or decision of the Tribunal to the Supreme Court other than those falling under Section 30(2) of the Act, but it is statutory ap....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable against orders of the AFT, petitions under Article 227 cannot be filed before the cour....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be ....
High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to review Tribunal's decisions from Principal Bench in New Delhi, affirming jurisdictional rules established by Supreme Court.
The power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is a basic and inalienable human right, forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and cannot be taken away b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal to a higher court is a relevant factor in determining the maintainability of a writ petition,....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and extraordinary, and should not....
The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature and cannot be curtailed by legislation. The rule of alternative remedy is a rule of prudence and not a rule of la....
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
