1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 2.11.2016 passed in Appeal No.310 TRU/C8551/2/743478/P1 by the Unit Administrative Officer.

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's husband Shivnandan Mishra is posted in Unit 310, TRU- Air Force Maharajpura, Gwalior since 17.6.2013 and charge sheet has been issued against him. After inquiry, it has been recommended to conduct District Court Martial. A representation was submitted against the recommendation and thereafter appeal has already been submitted to the President of India. During pendency of the appeal before President of India, respondent No.5 has issued impugned order dated 2.11.2016 to conduct the District Court Martial in respect of the petitioner's husband. In view of the order dated 2.11.2016, petitioner's husband is not permitted to leave the station. Since the petitioner being wife of Shivnandan Mishra, she is affected by the impugned order and therefore present writ petition has been filed.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition in as much as statutory efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner Under section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (herein after referred to as “Act, 2007”) and therefore petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

4. The second contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition in as much as, the charge sheet has been issued to the husband of the petitioner who is in employment of the respondents and as such the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a Layman and she does not have the knowledge of law and therefore she approached the Principal Registrar of this Court along with representation seeking redressal of her grievances. Principal Registrar of this Court had granted permission to file the writ petition and directed M. P. High Court Legal Aid Services Authority, Gwalior to look into the matter and take necessary action for prosecuting the case. In turn the Legal Aid Authority had appointed Shri B.S. Bhadoriya as a counsel for the petitioner and in that capacity he has filed this writ petition and therefore the ground of alternative remedy cannot be raised at this stage when this Court had already granted permission to file writ petition.

6. A query was put by this Court and the counsel for the petitioner was asked to produce the permission/order sheets in support of his contentions made here-in-above but he was not able to produce the same. None of the documents, including representation, order sheets, if any have been filed along with writ petition to substantiate his contentions.

7. Section 14 of the Act, 2007 provides jurisdiction, powers and authorities in service matters and the same is being reproduced here in below for ready reference and convenience :-

“14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters:-

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority, exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts (except the Supreme Court or a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to all service matters.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any service matter may make an application to the Tribunal in such form and accompanied by such documents or other evidence and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.

(3) On receipt of an application relating to service matters, the Tribunal shall, if satisfied after due inquiry, as it may deem necessary, that it is fit for adjudication by it, admit such application: but where the Tribunal i