Dayaram Verma vs Union Of India & Ors.

C. Hari Shankar, J.

Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner would lie before Armed Forces Tribunal^{11.“the Tribunal”, hereinafter}.

Mr. Ajeet Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that in earlier writ petition, this Court has entertained matters and decided them.

We have seen the orders passed in the other cases. None of the order deal with the aspect of availability of alternate remedy before the Tribunal.

Mr. Yadav does not dispute the fact that the lis in this petition is amenable to jurisdiction by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, Mr. Yadav seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal.

In order to expedite matters, we permit the petitioner to present this petition itself before the Tribunal, which will treat it as Original Application and proceed to decide in accordance with law.

The registry is directed to return the papers to the petitioner so that he could act in accordance with the order passed today.

The petition is disposed of as withdrawn.