UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus RANBIR SINGH RATHAUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 22-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RANBIR SINGH RA THAUR AND ORS. 
MARCH 22, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Army Act 1950-Sections 18, 69. 
Official Secrets Act 1923--Section 3 (I) (c) 
c 
Constitution of India-Article 226 and 310 
. Writ Petition-Maintainability of fresh Writ Petiticfn-Court Martial 
Proceedings-Dismissal from Service-Writ Petitions challenging the Orders 
dismissed by High Court--SLP and Review Petitions also dismissed-Fresh 
Writ Petition to High Court challenging the same orders allowed-Plea of D 
maintainability of fresh petition not decided-Remitting the matter td the High 
Court, Held, Review of High Court order by jili~g afresh Writ Petition is not 
permissible-Direction first to decide the objection about non-maintainability 
of petitiont. 
· 
"Respondents were tried by Gene-ral Court Martial for espionage E 
activities. Some of them were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment 
and were cashiered. Against others disciplinary action was initiated and 
it was decided not to try them. Their services were terminated u/s 18 of 
the Army Act 1950 by an administrative order. Respondents' Writ 
petitions to the Delhi High Court challenging the Court Martial p 
proceedings were dismissed. Letters Patent Appeals against administrative 
order of dismissal were also dismissed. SLPs as well as Review Petitions 
and fresh W.P. to this Court were also dismissed. 
Respondents again challenged the validity of Court Martial 
proceedings by filing fresh Writ Petitions in High Court. Appellant took G 
the preliminary objection relating to maintainability of petitions. High 
Court allowed the petitions holding that proceedings initiated against the 
petitioners and orders passed against them were void and vitiated being 
without any material and being a camouflage. Appeals to this Court were 
193 
H 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006) 3 S.C.R. 
A preferred by the appellants against the impugned order. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the High Court, 
the Court 
HELD: 1. On a bare reading of the High Court's order and the 
B averments in the writ petitions, one thing is crystal clear that there was 
no definite allegation against any person who was responsible for the so 
called manipulation. The Writ Petitioners wanted review of the High 
Court's order, which is clearly impermissible. No ground for seeking such 
review apparently was made out. The High Court's approach is clearly 
c 
erroneous. The present appellants in the counter affidavit filed had raised 
a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petitions 
and had requested the High Court to grant further opportunity if the 
necessity so arises to file a detailed counter affidavit after the preliminary 
objections were decided. The High Court in fact in one of the orders clearly 
indicated that the preliminary objections were to be de~ided first. But 
D strangely it did not do so. It reserved the judgment and delivered the final 
judgment after about three years. 1205-B-Ci 
2. The High Court also had not discussed as to how the matters which 
stood concluded could be reopened in the manner done. No sufficient 
grounds have been even indicated as to why the High Court felt it 
E necessary to do so. To say that though finality had been achieved justice 
stood at a higher pedestal is not an answer to the basic question as to 
whether the High Court was competent to re-open the whole issue which 
had become concluded. 1205-F-Gl 
3. Newspaper reports are not to be considered as evidence. The 
F authenticity of the newspaper reports was not established by the writ-
petitioners. Even otherwise, this could not have been done in a writ 
petition, as disputed questions of fact were apparently involved. The 
matters which the High Court found to have been established were really 
not so. The conclusions were based on untested materials, and the writ-
G petitioners had not established them by evidence. 1206-AI 
H 
4. The Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh hearing 
with a direction to first decide the preliminary objections raised by the 
appellants about the non-maintainability of the writ petitions. 1206-81 
Subhash Juneja v. Union of India, CW 271/95 and Maj. N.R. Ajwani 
-
-
U.0.1. v.RANBIR SINGH RATHAUR (PASAYAT, J.) 
195 
and Ors. v; Union of India, 55 (1994) SL T 217, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR1SDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2949-2950 
of 2001. 
From the Final Common Judgment an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.