Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Considering that a review application had been filed and was pending hearing, the contempt application being infructuous stands disposed of. 4 5
- Para 33. Accordingly, in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the relevant provision of Act, paragraph 18 of the judgment under review is modified as follows:- 3 4 On being approached the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act…
Judgment
7. From the above discussion it emerges that in cases of special enactments like Army Act, all the principles of natural justice cannot be imported. The same ratio applies to a petition under Section 117(2) of the Act also. We may also point out here that Chapter XIII consisting of Rules 167 to 169 of the BSF Rules deals with petitions filed under Section 117 of the Act. Even in them there is nothing to indicate that a hearing has to be given before disposal of a petition. 8. As noted above, under Section 117 (2) the respondent is only entitled to file a petition but the disposal of such a petition does not attract principles of natural justice. The respondent has been tried by observing the due process law and the verdict of the Security Force Court was confirmed and it is only a post –confirmation petition filed under Section 117(2) of the Act and the authority which disposed of the same is not a court and every order passed administratively cannot be rigours of subjected principles of natural justice.
that was
Accordingly, in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the relevant provision of Act, paragraph 18 of the judgment under review is modified as follows:- 3 4
On being approached the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, shall consider the appeal/petition filed by the writ petitioner, in accordance with the provision of the Act, within 60(sixty) days from the date of filing the appeal.
Order
25.09.2024 stands modified on being reviewed.
This order be read along with order dated 25.9.2024.
Review application along with CAN 1 of 2025 stands disposed of. Re : CPAN 1093 of 2025
The writ petitioner has preferred a contempt application being CPAN 1093 of 2025 stating that the respondents in the writ application have willfully disobeyed the judgment and order dated 25.09.2024 passed by this Court.
Considering that a review application had been filed and was pending hearing, the contempt application being infructuous stands disposed of. 4 5
3. CPAN 1093 of 2025 stands disposed of. ( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. ) 5
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.