Back
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
COLONEL AKHIL MENDHE – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
ORDER : – The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Annexure P/7 convening order/Court of inquiry dated 1-2-2022 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said order is beyond jurisdiction and contrary to the section 19, 70, 121, 122, 180 of the Arms Act, 1950 as well as all the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and ors. vs. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, reported in (2001) 5 SCC 593.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court of inquiry is proposed to investigate and conclude the evidence in relation to the allegation which relates to the civil offence in which the petitioner has already been acquitted by the competent authority (criminal Court), and therefore, the aforesaid convening order amounts to reopening/re-initiating the proceedings which has already been done in the form of one man inquiry.
4. The aforesaid order is further contrary to the provisions of section 121 of the Arms Act and the settled preposition that if the officer tried by a criminal Court and acquitted then pronouncement of judicial verdict excluded any independ
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 ....
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 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 power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and extraordinary, and should not....
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 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....
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....
Writ petitions are not maintainable when an efficacious alternate remedy exists before a specialized tribunal, emphasizing the need to respect statutory forums.
Judicial orders from civil courts cannot be challenged through writs under Article 226; alternative remedies must be exhausted first.
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
