Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—In the present writ petition, subject matter of challenge is the order passed in summary Court martial proceeding, wherein sentence has been awarded to the petitioner to serve rigorous imprisonment for six months and to be dismissed from service. Against the said order in question, petitioner preferred appeal, which has been dismissed on 18.5.1989 by mentioning that the same lacks substance. At the said juncture present writ petition has been filed before this Court on 7.3.1990.

2. On 7.12.2003 in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, present writ petition was dismissed, and thereafter an application was moved for recall the said order. Said application has been allowed on 9.12.2009, and thereafter, present writ petition has been taken up.

3. On the matter being taken up today, Sri Sunit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that this Court should take note of the change in the legal provision as has been introduced under Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and the present writ petition should be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal at Lucknow, which has been duly notified for adjudication of all service matters as per provisions as contained under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

4. Sri R.B. Singhal, Senior Advocate, Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri S.K. Rai, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted as a matter of course, and in the present case stand of the Union of India qua this aspect of the matter is not that of an adversary litigant, rather as a friend of the Court legal position is sought to be clarified that in exercise of authority under Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, writ petition cannot, ipso facto, be transferred to the Tribunal, keeping in view the provisions as contained under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which clearly excludes the jurisdiction of supreme Court and High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in relation to all service matters, and as such request made by the petitioner cannot be accepted automatically as a matter of right.

5. In order to appreciate the respective arguments advanced, the constitutional provisions as well as the provisions of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 are being looked into.

6. Part XIV-A of the Constitution was inserted through Section 46 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 1.3.1977. Said amendment proposed two provisions of Articles 323-A and 323-B, which are extracted below :

“323-A. Administrative tribunals.—(1) Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any Corporation owned or controlled by the Government.

(2) A law made under clause (1) may—

(a) provide for the establishment of an administrative tribunal for the Union and a separate administrative tribunal for each State or for two or more States:

(b) specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of the said tribunals;

(c) provide for the procedure (including provisions as to limitation and rules of evidence) to be followed by the said tribunals;

(d) exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, with respect to the disputes or complaints referred to in clause (1):

(e) provide for the transfer to each such administrative tribunal of any cases pending before any Court or other authority immediately before the es