SHEO SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are army personnel. Two of them namely, Sheo Shanker Prasad Singh aind Petrus Purty have since retired. The third one, namely, E.V. Jeevarajan is still in active service. They have challenged the maintainability of the General Court Martial proceedings on the ground of bar of limitation.

(2.) The Petitioners had earlier come to this Court making a similar grievances in Cr.W.J.C. Nos. 250-252 of 1998 [ 1998 3 PLJR 163]. In its order dated 29.7.98 this Court held that whenever a plea of bar of limitation is raised, the same is required to be disposed of by a reasoned order and communicated to the person concerned, and accordingly disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the authority to supply a copy of the order by which the plea of bar has been rejected. Copy of the order (in fact, it is a single word order "rejected") has since been served on them.

(3.) Before I come to the controversy regarding the bar of limitation and state the relevant facts in that regard, I may dispose of the argument on the question as to whether the aforesaid direction of this Court has been complied with by the authority or not. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contended that in terms of the aforesaid order of this Court the concerned authorities were duty bound to pass a reasoned order but, curiously, a one-word order of rejection has been communicated which cannot be said to be compliance of the order at all. Mr. Jha submitted that in the circumstances the matter may be sent back to the Respondent authority for passing a fresh order setting out the reasons for rejecting the plea of bar of limitation.