GENERAL COURT MARTIAL Vs. COLLECTOR ANILTEJ SINGH DHALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was an Army Officer of the rank of Lt. Col. and was posted as Commanding Officer under 116 Engineer Regiment, with head quarter, 17 Mta. Arty. Brde. Nine charges were framed against him on 24-6-1995 and General Court Martial was held from 1-7-95 to 10-11-95. He was found guilty on charges 2, 3, 8 and 9. He filed Crl. Writ Petition No. 1 of 1995 in the High Court of Sikkim on 11-12-1995. Thereafter on 2-3-1996 the order of the Court Martial was confirmed under S. 154 of the Army Act. By judgment dated 9-8-96 the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Court Martial. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court.

(2.) The main contention of the appellant is that the High Court has exceeded its power of judicial review under Art. 226 and acted as a Court of appeal by discussing and appreciating the evidence. Reliance is placed on Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commr. of Hills Divn. (1958) SCR 1240 wherein this Court held that the High Court had no power under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari in order to quash an error of fact, even though it may be apparent on face of the record unless there is an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record. The Court observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to seeing that the judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals or administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial powers do not exceed their statutory jurisdiction and correctly administer the law laid down by the Statute under which they act.

(3.) In H.S. and I.E. Board, U.P. v. Bagleshwar AIR 1966 SC 875, the Court held that an order passed by a Tribunal holding a quasi judicial enquiry which is not supported by any evidence is an order which is erroneous on the face of it and as such is liable to be quashed by the High Court under Art. 226. In Parry and Co. v. Judge, 2ns I.T. Cal AIR 1970 SC 1334 the Court held that a writ is granted generally when a Court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or where the Tribunal acts in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or violates the principle of natural justice where no particular procedure is prescribed.