High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to review Tribunal's decisions from Principal Bench in New Delhi, affirming jurisdictional rules established by Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is directed against order 19.09.2025 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

2. The petitioners had filed Original Applications ('OAs') before the Tribunal under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 whereby they were discharged from service locally on academic grounds and prayed for quashing of the impugned order, seeking reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

3. The OAs filed by the petitioners were heard along with few other OAs and the Tribunal by the order impugned came to the conclusion that the OAs were devoid of merit and consequently, dismissed the same. Aggrieved of the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi, the present petition has been filed.

4. Counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection that as the order impugned has been passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi, this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter.

5. Submissions have been made that the applicants in other OAs have already approached Delhi High Court, wherein counter affidavit has been called and to avoid conflicting decision qua the same common impugned order also, the petition be not entertained by this Court at Allahabad.

6. Counsel for the petitioners contested the submissions made. It has been submitted that in terms of Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 ('Rules, 2008'), the OA could have been filed with the Bench of the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the petitioner was last posted or where the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen. However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2008 provides that a person who is ceased to be in service by reason of his retirement, dismissal, discharge at his option can file an application with the Bench of the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.

7. Submissions have been made that in fact the Original Application could only be filed before the Bench of the Tribunal at Visakhapatnam or based on the residence of the petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 with Bench at Lucknow and in view of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2008 as the petition could have been filed at Lucknow, this Court would have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

8. Reliance has been placed on judgement inPunjab National Bank v. Shri Sakhroo Ram and others : Writ Petition No. 10385 of 2013 decided on 08.12.2025 by Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench, Union of India and others v. Parashotam Dass :2023 INSC 265 Paritosh Kumar v. Union of India and others :2013 (9) ADJ 1,U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mills Limited v. State of U.P. and others :1995(4) SCC 738 andNasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Authority : 1975(2) SCC 671

9. Counsel for the respondents submitted that one of the petitioners Sachin Kumar son of Saheb Singh is not even the resident of Uttar Pradesh and that the issue would be governed by judgement in Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others :(2005) 1 UPLBEC 108

10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. The issue, as raised in the present matter, is no more res-integra as Hon'ble Supreme Court inUnion of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay : (2022) 3 SCC 133, while dealing with the said aspect with reference to Constitution Bench judgement in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India :(1997) 3 SCC 261 inter-alia came to the following conclusion :

"37. Further, it was held thus: (L. Chandra Kumar case)

“99. ….The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Co