Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army in 1994. The petitioner was posted at Bangalore and pursuant to an incident dated 30.7.1994, he was chargesheeted for using criminal force against his superior officers. The Summary Court Martial proceedings were held at Bangalore in July 1999 in which an order dated 21.7.97 was passed imposing minor punishment of reduction in rank and three months rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner thereafter filed a statutory representation under Section 164[2] of the Army Act 1950 before the G.O.C.-in-Command, Head Quarter Southern Command, Pune. The said representation was rejected by the competent authority on 24.2.1998 and a communication to this effect was sent by the office of the Additional Directorate General, Discipline and Vigilance [DV-3] Adjutant General's Branch, Army Head quarters, New Delhi vide its letter dated 29.5.1998 to the petitioner's address in Tamilnadu. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition before this Court at Allahabad for quashing of the Summary Court Martial proceedings, the order of penalty as well as the order passed in the petition under Section 164[2] of the Army Act.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that this Court does riot have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition, inasmuch as no cause of action arose in the State of U.P. and therefore, no writ could be issued by this Court. It was contended that the petitioner was posted at Bangalore, the incident occurred at Bangalore and that the Court Martial proceedings were also conducted at Bangalore and that the order of punishment was also passed at Bangalore. Not only this, the petitioner under Section 164(2) of the Army Act was also remitted by the petitioner from Bangalore and that the order of dismissal of his petition was communicated to the petitioner in Tamilnadu and therefore, no cause of action wholly or in part arose in the State of U.P.
(3.) Heard Colonel Ashok Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subodh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the respondents.;