Smt. Sona Devi vs The Union of India and Others

Ramesh Kr. Datta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Central Government and for the State as also the State Bank of India. Learned counsel for the Central Government takes a preliminary objection that the statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner before the Armed Forces Tribunal u/s 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is only to that effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that this Court has already held in the case of Uday Shankar Upadhyay and Others Vs. Mr. Binay Kr. Pandey and Others etc. etc., , that the present matter is maintainable and should be heard by this Court.

The only question under consideration of this Court in the case of Uday Shankar Upadhyay in a batch of writ petitions was as to whether the said writ petitions would stand transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata constituted under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 by virtue of Section 34 of the said Act. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. The Union of India and Others: 1997 (1) PLJR (SC) 84, it was held that the writ petitions cannot be transferred and Section 34 of the Act does not envisage any such transfer.

The said decision has no relevance in the present case where the question is as to whether in the presence of alternative statutory remedy, the writ petition should be entertained before this Court.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has got an efficacious remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata and it is not an appropriate case for consideration under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy.