Petitioners Directed to Approach Appropriate Forum as the Impugned Order Originated from the Principal Bench, New Delhi
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi, on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petition was filed by Sachin Kumar and others, who had sought the quashing of their discharge from service on academic grounds. The petitioners were advised to seek redress from the appropriate forum, as the court underscored its lack of jurisdiction over orders originating from outside its territorial boundary.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, emphasized the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. This principle mandates that all decisions made by tribunals under Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution are subject to review only by the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal is located. Consequently, the Allahabad High Court found itself unable to entertain the petition against the order issued by the Principal Bench in New Delhi.
The petitioners, represented by counsel Bansh Raj Mishra and Indrajeet Kumar, argued that the application could have been filed before the Tribunal's Bench at Visakhapatnam or Lucknow, based on where the cause of action arose or where the petitioners resided. However, the court clarified that its jurisdiction was not determined by the bundle of facts related to the cause of action but strictly by the location of the tribunal that issued the impugned order.
The court cited various precedents to reinforce its stance, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, which reiterated that the scrutiny of tribunal decisions should occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the relevant High Court. The Allahabad High Court's decision aligns with this precedent, ensuring consistency and avoiding jurisdictional conflicts.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, granting the petitioners the liberty to approach an appropriate forum that holds jurisdiction over the Principal Bench in New Delhi. The decision underscores the importance of adherence to jurisdictional boundaries in the judicial review of tribunal orders.
Bottom Line:
High Court's territorial jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is limited to the territorial boundaries within which the Tribunal concerned falls. Orders passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi, can only be reviewed by the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Principal Bench falls.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 226, 227, 323-A, 323-B of the Constitution of India; Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008.
Sachin Kumar v. Union of India, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2877403
