R.D. Sharma v. Union of India

1. Vide innpugned order dated 8.3.2011 the Arnned Forces Tribunal has held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate OA No.351/2010. It has also been held that the claim suffers from delay and laches.

2. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner once the Tribunal held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate OA No.351/2010, it should have refrained from deciding whether the claim raised suffered from delay and laches.

3. We find from the impugned decision that there is no discussion with respect to facts which could attract a finding that the claim before the Tribunal suffered from delay and laches.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that if the W.P.(C) 7069/2011 page 1 of[2] 2011:DHC:16048-DB \ part of the impugned order is set aside in so far it holds that the claim suffered from delay and laches he would not argue on the issue of territorial jurisdiction.

5. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition setting aside the order dated 8.3.2011 in so far it is held in the said order that the claim raised in the OA No.351/2010 suffers from delay and laches.

6. We clarify. OA No.351/2010 would then require to be returned to the petitioner and not dismissed. For the reason, if a Court or a Fora or a Tribunal holds that it has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim, the claim petition has to be returned for re-filing before the proper Court, Fora or Tribunal.

7. Thus, we direct the Registrar of the Armed Forces Tribunal to return OA No.351/2010 to the petitioner so that he can file it before the Armed Forces Tribunal having jurisdiction with respect to the claim raised in the original application. Needless to state, if re-filed before the Armed Forces Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction, respondents would be permitted to ^ urge the bar of limitation. Said bench would decide the plea on merits.

8. No costs.

9. Dasti.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. IL GAUR, J. SEPTEMBER 26, 2011