Challenge To Tribunal Order Lies Before HC Having Territorial Jurisdiction Over It: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that it does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions against the order passed the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal located in New Delhi.
Relying on the landmark judgment of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,
“In view of the above categorical law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that as the order impugned has been passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, New Delhi, this Court would lack territorial jurisdiction to hear challenge to the said order.”
Petitioners filed original applications before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi against their discharge orders and seeking reinstatement. The applications were dismissed by the Tribunal. While some aggrieved approached the Delhi High Court, petitioners approached the Allahabad High Court.
Counsel for respondent raised an objection regarding maintainability of the petition before the Allahabad High Court and also submitted that counter affidavits had been filed before the Delhi High Court and since the challenge was to a common order, Allahabad High Court should not entertain such petitions to avoid conflicting decisions.
Counsel for petitioners pleaded that while in service, application could be filed in before the Tribunal in whose jurisdiction the petitioners were last working. However, once the petitioners ceased to be employees, they could approach the Tribunal in whose jurisdiction they were ordinarily residing. Accordingly, it was argued that since the petitioners were ordinarily residing in Lucknow, original applications could be filed before the Tribunal at Lucknow, and the writ petition could be entertained.
In Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, the Apex Court held that,
“The law thus declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. We are of the considered view that taking another view would undoubtedly result in indefiniteness and multiplicity in the matter of jurisdiction in situations when a decision passed under Section 25 of the Act is to be called in question especially in cases involving multiple parties residing within the jurisdiction of different High Courts albeit aggrieved by one common order passed by the Chairman at the Principal Bench at New Delhi.”
The Court noted that in the facts of the present case, it was to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction prior to delving into the merits of the original application.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Case Title: Sachin Kumar and 3 others v. Union of India and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 181
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 181