Disposed

Rama Kant Goshwami v. the Union of India and Ors.

Patna HC20 Mar 2015CWJC/11758/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court held that a pending writ application challenging a Court martial sentence falls within the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal and stands transferred under Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was not allowed; instead, the case was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal under Section 34 of the Act.

Rama Kant Goshwami Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.11758 of 1998 (9) dt.20-03-2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11758 of 1998

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Rama Kant Goshwami, Son of late Gaya Deyal Goshwami, resident of Village-Deoar, Police Station-Sandesh, District-Bhojpur

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Union of India through Defence Secretary, Department of Government of India, New Delhi

¶8

The Secretary, Department of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi

¶9

Chief of the Army Staff, Army Headquarter and A.G.S. Branch D.H.O, New Delhi.

¶10

Headquarters, Central Command(A), Lucknow

¶11

Commandant, Bihar Regimental Centre, Danapur Cant. Patna, Bihar

¶12

Shri B.K. Sharma, Leiutenant Colonel, Administrative Battalion, Bihar Regiment Centre, Danapur, Patna.

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s

¶14

====================================================== Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, CGC

¶16

======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

9 20-03-2015 1. Heard Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Central Government Counsel.

¶20

The petitioner in the present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the sentence and punishment awarded against him in a summary Court martial whereby, he has been dismissed from service and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year.

¶21

During the pendency of the writ application, Armed

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.11758 of 1998 (9) dt.20-03-2015

¶23

Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) came to be enacted providing for establishment of Armed Forces Tribunal by the Central Government.

¶24

Section 15 of the said Act deals with the jurisdiction, power and authority in the matters of appeal against Court martial. Section 34 of the Act provides for transfer of pending cases including suits and other proceedings before any Court including a High Court.

¶25

Section 34 of the Act reads thus:-

¶26

“34. Proceeding of pending cases-(1) Every suit, or other proceeding pending before any Court including a High Court, or other authority immediately before the date of establishment of the Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whoever on it is based, is such that it would have been within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, if it had arisen after such establishment within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal.

¶27

(2) Where any suit, or other proceeding stands transferred from any Court including a High Court or other authority to the Tribunal under sub Section (1),-

¶28

(a) the Court or other authority shall, as soon as may be, after such transfer, forward the records of such suit, or other proceeding to the Tribunal;

¶29

(b) the Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit, or other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in the case of an application made under sub-Section (2) of Section 14, from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de novo as the Tribunal may deem fit.”

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.11758 of 1998 (9) dt.20-03-2015

¶31

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union

¶32

of India has relied upon decisions of this Court in case of Union of India Vs. Col. Sarat Chandra Mishra reported in 2012(2) PLJR 101 as well as 2012 (3) PLJR 805 (Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar) in support of his plea that by operation of Section 34 of the Act, the present writ application stands transferred to the

¶33

Tribunal.

¶34

I find the submission made on behalf of the Union

¶35

of India to be correct.

¶36

The present writ application stood transferred by operation of Section 34 of the Act. Let the records of the present writ application be forwarded to the Tribunal in terms of Section 34 (2) (a) of the Act.

¶37

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶38

ArunKumar/-

¶39

Rama Kant Goshwami v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Kant Goshwami v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Ali Raza Vs State and Ors.

The Man.Comm.Mazharul Haque Fa Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Bimli Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Aditya Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Vikki Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar