✦ Bombay High Court

Sachin Vilas Kamble v. The Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition No. 5743 of 2009H BHATIA, F I REBELLO

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. Considering the above, the Writ Petition as filed would be maintainable as the petitioner cannot be left remediless and apart from that considering Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunal Act read with Section 3 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 the Administrative Tribunal…

Judgment

Mr. Sanjay Prabhu for the Applicant Ms. Shraddha Chavan i/s. Suresh Kumar for respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 25tTH JANUARY, 2010 P.C.

1.

The Review Petition is directed against the order of this Court dated 21st July, 2009 holding that the Writ Petition would not be maintainable as the reliefs sought is amenable to the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal.

2.

The Review Applicant is a member of the Railway Protection Force. He had approached this Court in the matter of his transfer from Railway Protection Force to Railway Protection Special Force.

3.

Under Section 2 the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 amongst others would not apply to any member of Naval, Military or Armed Force or any other Armed Force of the Union. Under the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 under Section 3 the Central Government was to constitute and maintain an armed force for the Union to be called Railway Protection Force. In other wards clearly, therefore, considering Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 the Administrative Tribunal would have no jurisdiction.

4.

Considering the above, the Writ Petition as filed would be maintainable as the petitioner cannot be left remediless and apart from that considering Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunal Act read with Section 3 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 the Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition. In view of that the Review Petition is allowed. The office to place the Writ Petition for admission. Review Petition disposed off accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)

(F.I. REBELLO,J.)

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 5743 of 2009). ← Search more judgments