Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Reserved on: 3 September, 2019
th
Decided on: 12 September, 2019
+ W.P(C) 12681/2018
COL. RAN SINGH DUDEE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Chandra Jaiswal, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Mr.
Srivats Kanshal, Advocates for
Respondents No.1 and 4.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
J U D G M E N T
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. :
1. Col. Ran Singh Dudee has filed the present petition seeking three reliefs.
th
The first is to direct the author of an order dated 20 November, 2013 issued
by the Ministry of Defence (MOD), Government of India (Annexure P-1) to
issue a clarification to the Controller of Defence Accounts („CDA‟) for
„remaining entitlement‟ with information to the Petitioner.
th
2. The second relief is for quashing of an order dated 30 July, 2018 issued
by the Adjutant General Army Headquarters, New Delhi which was in
th th
compliance with the orders dated 24 January, 2017 and 9 May, 2017 of
the Armed Forces Tribunal („AFT‟), Regional Bench, Lucknow.
WP(C) 12681/2018 Page 1 of 6
3. The third prayer is for a direction to the Secretary, MOD to get the order
th
dated 20 November, 2013 implemented in a time-bound manner in
accordance with the clarification issued by Respondent No.2, the author of
the said order.
4. It must be noticed herein that the Petitioner has impleaded, apart from the
Secretary, MOD and the Director Acquisition, MOD as Respondents No.1
and 2 respectively, the State of M.P as Respondent No.3, the Deputy
Director in the Adjutant General‟s branch in New Delhi as Respondent No.4
and one Mr. Kamal Patel an Ex-Revenue Minister in Bhopal as Respondent
No.5.
5. The Petitioner has sought to justify not going before the AFT only
because it “does not have jurisdiction over State of M.P”.
6. It must be noticed that along with the present writ petition the Petitioner
had also filed WP(C) 11192/2018 in this Court where again apart from
making Respondents No.1 and 2 herein as parties as Respondents No.1 and
3 in that writ petition, he sought to implead the State of MP as Respondent
No.4, Mr. Kamal Patel as Respondent No.5 and his own wife and two
children as Respondent Nos.6 to 8. The prayer in that petition was again for
th
a direction to the author of the order dated 20 November, 2013 to issue a
clarification “to resolve the controversy” on the Petitioner‟s two pending
representations.
th
7. On 14 March, 2019 this Court dismissed W.P. (C) 11192 of 2018 by the
WP(C) 12681/2018 Page 2 of 6
following order:
“1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks and is granted
leave to withdraw the petition to seek other appropriate
remedy in accordance with law.
2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.”
8. In other words, the Court accepted the preliminary objection of the
Respondents that the Petitioner ought to go before the AFT for the above
reliefs.
9. Inasmuch as the first prayer i.e. prayer (a) in the present petition [to which
Prayer (c) is also connected] is identical to the prayer (a) in W.P. (C) 11192
of 2018, the Court finds substance in the preliminary objection of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 represented by Mr. Jasmeet Singh, learned senior
Standing Counsel for the Respondents, that the Petitioner ought to approach
the AFT for the relief in relation thereto.
10. The other relief sought in the present petition is for the quashing of the
th
letter dated 30 July, 2018 of the Adjutant General. The said order has been
th
passed in purported compliance of the directions issued by the AFT on 24
th
January, 2017 and 9 May, 2017 in the applications filed by the present
Petitioner. Therefore, the said order indisputably arises from the order of the
AFT itself. There is no reason why the State of M.P or Respondent No. 5,
who is described as an Ex Revenue Minister in the Government of M.P.,
should at all be made party to the present petition.
WP(C) 12681/2018 Page 3 of 6
11. The Petitioner has in para 5 of the petition sought to offer a weak
explanation as under:
“5. That the entire case is based on the root of the Land
Allotment which belongs to the Government of Madhya Pradesh
unless the state is made the party no justice can be met with.
Since, the State of Madhya Pradesh is the party therefore the
AFT has no jurisdiction only Hon‟ble High Court has the
jurisdiction, Hence Writ Petition before this Hon‟ble Court.”
12. The Court finds that the so-called land allotment which forms subject
matter of the General Court Martial (GCM) ordered against the Petitioner
has no relevance to the reliefs sought in the present petition. The said GCM
th
proceedings were annulled by an order dated 30 November, 2013 passed
by the MOD “with all consequential benefits”. One consequential benefit
was regarding the promotion denied to the Petitioner during the pendency of
the GCM. Although the Petitioner was promoted as Colonel, he was not
promoted as Brigadier. Aggrieved by that decision, the Petitioner went
before the AFT and succeeded before it.
13. Against the order of the AFT, the Union of India appealed to the
rd
Supreme Court. By a detailed judgment dated 3 July, 2018 the Supreme
Court allowed the appeal of the Union of India. The operative portions of
the judgment of the Supreme Court read as under:
“11. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we cannot
support the view taken by the Tribunal. According to us, the
approach of the Tribunal and the assessment made by it were
completely erroneous. The Tribunal was also not justified in
awarding costs of Rupees five lakhs to the respondent.
12. It may be that the respondent was wrongly proceeded
WP(C) 12681/2018 Page 4 of 6
against and punished by General Court Martial. He was also
awarded sentence of imprisonment and lost out nine years of
service. The prejudice is quite apparent. However sympathy
cannot outweigh the considerations on merit. He has received
time scale promotion to the rank of Colonel after having put in
26 years of regular service. But if he was not found suitable for
empanelment by way of selection, the matter must end there.
13. We therefore allow both the appeals and set aside
Judgments and Orders dated 17.01.2017 and 12.09.2017
passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench,
Lucknow.”
th
14. It must be noticed here that thereafter, the impugned order dated 30
July, 2018 has been issued by the Adjutant General dealing with various
issues raised by the Petitioner as to the consequential reliefs he is entitled to
th
as a result of the order dated 30 November, 2013. As already noticed, all
these proceedings stemmed from the GCM. The Petitioner has been
consistently approaching the AFT for the reliefs he claims to be entitled to
th
as a result of the order dated 30 November, 2013.
15. There is no occasion in these circumstances for the Petitioner to make
the State of M.P or Mr. Kamal Patel, a former Revenue Minister of M.P as
party to these proceedings. It appears that they have been made a party only
to justify filing of the present writ petition in this Court.
16. The Court is not therefore inclined to entertain this petition. It will,
however, be open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before any
other forum, including the AFT, in accordance with law.
WP(C) 12681/2018 Page 5 of 6
17. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
TAWANT SINGH, J.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2019
mw
WP(C) 12681/2018 Page 6 of 6