Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE important question of law, which arises in the present writ petition is whether the General Court Martial convened against the petitioner is required to pass a reasoned order while declining an application filed by the petitioner under Rule 51 of the Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules')
(2.) SINCE the question is a purely legal, we do not consider it necessary to make reference to the detailed facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner was commissioned in the Judge Advocate General Branch of the Indian Army on 8.3.1997. A Court of Inquiry was ordered by the Headquarters Western Command on 5.8.2005 consequent to a newspaper report published against the conduct of the petitioner. Subsequently, the Commanding Officer ordered summary of evidence on 30.12.2005 and that a communication dated 19.1.2007 was addressed to the petitioner to the effect that the provisional disciplinary and vigilance ban has been imposed on the petitioner with effect from 27.1.2006 and that due to disciplinary case pending against her, she shall be relieved of her duties with effect from 7.3.2007 and that the provisions of Section 123 of the Army Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') stand invoked against the petitioner. It was thereafter that the General Court Martial Proceedings were convened against the petitioner on 26.2.2007. Before the General Court Martial, the petitioner moved an application raising a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial to try the petitioner due to non compliance of Rule 37 of the Rules by the Convening Authority. The said objections are appended as Annexure R.26 with the present petition. The petitioner also submitted a supplementary preliminary objections supplementing the earlier objection, vide Annexure P.27. To such preliminary and supplementary preliminary objections, the respondents filed a detailed reply on 30.4.2007 vide Annexure P.28. The petitioner submitted again a detailed rejoinder on 3.5.2007. On the basis of such detailed pleadings of over fifty pages, the General Court Martial, as per the petitioner, passed the following order on 7.5.2007: The Court decides that prima facie the Court is not satisfied that they do not have the jurisdiction to try the accused hence rejects her submission to lead evidence in support of same. As regards to the tampering of summary of evidence the Court decided that the same are typographical errors and hence decides to use manuscript copy of the same and directs the Prosecutor to provide sufficient copies before the Court.
(3.) THE challenge in the writ petition is inter -alia to the aforesaid order on the ground that the said order is not a reasoned order and, therefore, violates the principles of natural justice.;