MAHESH SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted by a General Court Martial and sentenced to undergo five years imprisonment and dismissal from service on account of as many as nine charges of theft of diesel worth lakhs of rupees. Aggrieved, the petitioner claims to have filed a post confirmation petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act before the Chief of the Army Staff on 23rd August, 2006. He has also, it appears, filed an application under Section 182 of the Army Act for suspension of sentence imposed upon him. While the said appeal and the application for the suspension of the sentence are still pending before the competent Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition challenging the Court Martial proceedings and the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon him.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. WE are not, for the present, inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court Martial, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner's statutory petition under Section 164(2) is pending consideration before the competent Authority. Mr. Dalal, however, submits that this court could at least direct the Competent Authority to dispose of the said petition and also the application for suspension of sentence under Section 182 of the Army Act expeditiously. Although there is no prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the competent Authority to dispose of the pending petition under Section 164(2) and Section 182 of the Army Act, we are inclined to grant the limited prayer made by Mr. Dalal and direct the competent Authority to dispose of the pending petition expeditiously. Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, counsel for the respondent in that regard submits that given two months time, the competent Authority would be in a position to dispose of the appeal and also the application for suspension of sentence. WE accordingly direct that the competent Authority shall dispose of the pending petition under Section 164(2) and the application under Section 182 of the Army Act expeditiously but not later than two months from today. The petitioner shall then have the liberty to seek appropriate redress against the Court Martial proceedings and the order passed by the competent Authority under Section 164(2) and 182 of the Army Act. The petition is disposed of with the above direction leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Order Dasti to counsel for the parties.