Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rinku Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 April, 2026
1
D/L 1
10.04.2026
Rohit,A.R.(Ct.)
ct.no.236
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 6605 of 2025
Rinku Singh
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
Ms. Manika Roy
...for the Petitioner
Mr. Brojesh Jha
Mr. Rameshwar Sinha
...for the Respondent No. 1
1. The writ petitioner and the respondent Union
of India and its instrumentalities are
represented by their respective learned
Advocates.
2. Since the question of maintainability of the
instant writ petition was raised at the
instance of the respondent authorities, I
propose to hear the parties to the instant lis
on the point of maintainability first.
3. Mr. Jha, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent authorities at the
very outset draws attention of this Court to
the prayer portion of the instant writ petition.
It is submitted that on perusal of the prayer
of the instant writ petition it would reveal that
the subject matters of challenge before this
Court are the orders dated 09.12.2024 and
2
13.02.2024 as passed by the respondent
authorities vis-Ã -vis the order dated
24.07.2024 as passed by the Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kolkata
(hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal in
short) in connection with O.A. No. 119 of
2024.
4. Drawing attention to Page No. 75 and 102 to
103 of the instant writ petition it is submitted
that undisputedly the delinquent/writ
petitioner was dismissed from the naval
service on 09.12.2024. At this juncture
attention of this Court is drawn to Page No.
27 of the instant writ petition being a copy of
the order dated 13.02.2024 as passed by the
Captain, Capt (PS) being an order passed in a
review petition under Section 163 of the Navy
Act of 1957 whereby and where under the
initial trial proceeding as well as the
punishment of the delinquent was set aside
by the said authority with a direction for
commencement of retrial of the
delinquent/writ petitioner.
5. It is submitted from Page No. 28 to 41 of the
instant writ petition it would reveal further
that challenging the said order dated
13.02.2024 the writ petitioner filed O.A. No.
3
119 of 2024 before the said Tribunal and the
same is still pending. Drawing further
attention of this Court to Page 67 of the
instant writ petition being a copy of the order
dated 24.07.2024 as passed by the said
Tribunal it is submitted that from the said
order dated 24.07.2024, it would reveal that
the respondent authorities informed the
Tribunal that pursuant to the order dated
13.02.2024 the re-trial against the
delinquent/writ petitioner was held and
completed.
6. At this juncture attention of this Court is
drawn to Section 27 of the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as
the said Act of 2007). It is submitted that
Section 27 of the said Act of 2007 deals with
the power of the Chairperson of the Tribunal
to transfer cases from one bench to another.
It is thus submitted that for the sake of
argument even if it is admitted that the
Kolkata Bench of the said Tribunal is not
functional the writ petitioner was at liberty to
approach the Chairperson of the said
Tribunal to transfer the O.A. No. 119 of 2024
before any other bench of the said Tribunal
which is functioning regularly. It is thus
4
submitted that despite availability of the
alternative remedy the writ petitioner has
approached this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for ventilating his
grievance against the order of the authority
dated 13.02.2024 vis-Ã -vis the order dated
09.12.2024 whereby and where under order
for re-trial and order of dismissal was passed
by the respondent authorities. It is thus
submitted that on account of availability of
efficacious statutory alternative remedy this
Court may be very slow in entertaining the
instant writ petition and thus the instant writ
petition may be dismissed at the threshold of
its maintainability.
7. In course of his submission, Mr. Jha, learned
Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent authorities places his reliance
upon the following reported decisions:-
a) (2014) 1 SCC 603 Commissioner of Income
Tax & Others -Vs- Chhabil Dass Agarwal
b) (2011) 14 SCC 337 Nivedita Sharma-Vs-
Cellular Operators Association of India &
Others
c) (2018) 3 SCC 85 Authorized Officer, State
Bank of Travancore and Another-Vs- Mathew
K.C.
5
8. Per Contra, Ms. Roy, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/
delinquent in course of her submission draws
attention of this Court to Page No. 67, 68 and
69 as well as Page No. 76 to 78 of the instant
writ petitions being copies of several orders as
passed by the said Tribunal in connection
with O.A. No. 119 of 2024. It is contended by
Ms. Roy that on conjoint perusal of the said
orders as passed the said Tribunal it would
reveal that on 24.07.2024 before the said
Tribunal the respondent authorities informed
the said Tribunal with regard to the
completion of the said re-trial.
9. It is further submitted that from the latter
orders as passed by the said Tribunal it would
reveal further that on account of non-
availability of the quorum in the Kolkata
Bench of the said Tribunal, the said Tribunal
could not assemble and as a result whereof
the writ petitioner could not press his interim
relief as made in O.A. No. 119 of 2024. In this
regard attention of this Court is drawn to
Page No. 70 to 73 of the instant writ petition
being a copy of the application for interim
relief being M.A. 137 of 2024 as filed in the
pending original application.
6
10. It is thus submitted by Ms. Roy that
though a Bench of the said Tribunal is
constituted in Kolkata but the same bench is
not functional and as such before the said
Tribunal the writ petitioner is practically
remediless which prompted the writ petitioner
to approach this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for exercising its
plenary power in its discretionary and
prerogative writ jurisdiction.
11. Placing her reliance upon the judgment as
passed in the case of Rojer Mathew -Vs-
South India Bank Limited represented by
its Chief Manager & Others reported in
(2020) 6 SCC 1, the order dated 19.12.2025 as
passed in MAT 2211 of 2025 (Arnab
Adhikari & Ors. -Vs- State of West Bengal
& Ors.) as passed by a Division Bench of this
Court as well as the judgment dated
13.1.2026 as passed by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in W.P.A 27327 of 2025 (Md.
Masidul Islam -Vs- The State of West
Bengal & Others), it is argued by Ms. Roy
that in the aforementioned three decisions the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court and a Co-ordinate Bench
consistently observed that in the event a
7
tribunal is not established or functioning the
litigants must not be remediless and thus
they have a right to invoke the extra-ordinary
writ jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for redressal of their grievances.
12. It is thus argued by the Ms. Roy that in
view of the proposition of law as discussed in
the reported decisions as cited from her side
and in view of the practical difficulty as faced
by the delinquent/writ petitioner there cannot
be any occasion to hold that the instant writ
petition is not maintainable.
13. This Court has meticulously perused the
entire materials as placed before this Court.
This Court has given its due consideration
over the submissions of the learned Advocates
for the contending parties. This Court have
also gone through the reported decisions as
cited from the bar.
14. In order to come to a logical finding on the
point of maintainability of the instant writ
petition this Court at the very outset proposes
to look to some of the provisions of the said
Act of 2007.
15. Section 14 of the said Act of 2007 reads as
under:-
8
“14. Jurisdiction, powers and
authority in service matters.-(1) Save as
otherwise expressly provided in this
Act, the Tribunal shall exercise, on and
from the appointed day, all the
jurisdiction, powers and authority,
exercisable immediately before that
day by all Courts (except the Supreme
Court or a High Court exercising
jurisdiction under articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution) in relation to
all service matters.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of
this Act, a person aggrieved by an
order pertaining to any service matter
may make an application to the
Tribunal in such form and
accompanied by such documents or
other evidence and on payment of such
fee as may be prescribed.
(3)…
(4)…
(5)…” `
16. Section 27 of the said Act of 2007 is
quoted hereinbelow in verbatim:-
“27. Power of Chairperson to transfer
cases from one Bench to another.-
9
On the application of any of the
parties and after notice to the parties
concerned, and after hearing such of
them as he may desire to be heard, or
on his own motion without such notice,
the Chairperson may transfer any case
pending before one Bench for disposal,
to any other Bench.”
17. Keeping in mind the aforementioned
legislative provisions if I look to the factual
aspects as involved in the instant writ petition
it reveals that challenging the order of re-trial
dated 13.02.2024 the writ petitioner
approached the said Tribunal by filing O.A.
No. 119 of 2024 wherein the delinquent/writ
petitioner impugned the said order of re-trial.
From the materials as placed before this
Court it reveals that during the pendency of
the said re-trial, more specifically on
24.07.2024 the respondent authorities before
the said Tribunal intimated the said Tribunal
regarding conclusion of the said re-trial and
the same has been recorded by the said
Tribunal in its order dated 24.07.2024.
18. From the latter orders of the said Tribunal
as passed in connection with the said O.A. it
reveals that the Kolkata Bench of the said
10
Tribunal could not assemble on successive
occasions on account of lack of quorum and
as a consequence thereof the hearing of the
original application was deferred from time to
time and in the meantime the order of
dismissal dated 09.12.2024 of the
delinquent/writ petitioner came to be passed
which was challenged by filing a interlocutory
application being M.A. No. 137 of 2024
wherein the delinquent/writ petitioner has
prayed for interim order of stay over the order
of dismissal dated 09.12.2024. However, for
non-availability of the quorum the said
application cannot be taken up for hearing by
the Kolkata Bench of the said Tribunal.
19. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner
that in view of the non-availability of the
Kolkata Bench of the said Tribunal the writ
petitioner finding no other alternative but to
file the instant writ petition before this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
20. In view of the chronology of the events as
discussed above, this Court is duty bound to
come to a finding as to whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court
would entertain the instant writ petition or
not.
11
21. At this juncture I propose to look to the
reported decision of Chhabil Dass Agarwal
(supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
expressed the following view:-
“10. In the instant case, the only
question which arises for our
consideration and decision is whether
the High Court was justified in
interfering with the order passed by
the assessing authority under Section
148 of the Act in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 when an
equally efficacious alternate remedy
was available to the assessee under the
Act.
11. Before discussing the fact
proposition, we would notice the
principle of law as laid down by this
Court. It is settled law that non-
entertainment of petitions under writ
jurisdiction by the High Court when an
efficacious alternative remedy is
available is a rule of self-imposed
limitation. It is essentially a rule of
policy convenience and discretion
rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly,
it is within the discretion of the High
12Court to grant relief under Article 226
despite the existence of an alternative
remedy. However, the High Court must
not interfere if there is an adequate
efficacious alternative remedy
available to the petitioner and he has
approached the High Court without
availing the same unless he has made
out an exceptional case warranting
such interference or there exist
sufficient grounds to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226. (See State of U.P.V. Mohd.
Nooh [AIR 1958 SC 86], Titaghur Paper
Mills Co. Ltd v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2
SCC 433], Harbanslal Sahnia-V. Indian
Oil Corpn Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107 and
State of H. P. V. Gujarat Ambuja
Cement Ltd.) [(2005) 6 SCC 499]
(Emphasis supplied)”
22. In the judgment of Mathew KC (supra)
and Nivedita Sharma (supra) the Hon’ble
Apex Court expressed almost the same view.
23. As discussed above n course of his
submission Mr. Jha placing reliance upon the
reported decisions of Chhabil Dass Agarwal
(supra), Nivedita Sharma (supra) and Mathew K.C.
(supra) submits before this Court that in the
13
said three reported decisions as well as in the
constitutional bench judgment in the case of
L. Chandra Kumar -Vs- Union of India
reported in 1997 (3) SCC 261 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court deprecated the practice of
approaching the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India directly ignoring
the statutory forum as created by law for
redressal of grievances. It was thus contended
by Mr. Jha that in view of the proposition of
law as decided in the case of Chhabil Dass
Agarwal (supra), Nivedita Sharma (supra) and
Mathew K.C. (supra) the High Court cannot be
the Court of first instance for ventilating the
grievances of the writ petitioner and thus the
instant writ petition may be held not
maintainable.
24. At this juncture I propose to look to the
Paragraph No. 392 of the judgment of Rojer
Mathew (supra) as cited by Ms. Roy in course
of her submission. Paragraph No. 392 reads
as under:-
“392. The litigants cannot wait for
judicial impact assessment and action
by the Government which may or may
not take place. Experience has shown
that the judgments right from
L.Chandra Kumar (supra) to Madras
14Bar Assn. [(2010) 11 SCC 1] have not
been complied with by the Union in
letter and spirit. Citizens of this
country cannot be denied justice which
is the first promise made in the
Premable. Therefore, I am of the view
that in whichever State/Union
Territory the Bench of a particular
tribunal is not established or
functioning, the litigants of that State
will have a right to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the
jurisdictional High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution for redressal of
their grievances. They cannot be
expected to go to far off distant places
and spend huge amounts of money,
much beyond their means to ventilate
their grievances. The alternative
remedy of approaching a tribunal is an
illusory remedy and not an efficacious
alternative remedy. The self-imposed
bar or restraint of an alternative
efficacious remedy would not apply.
Such litigants are entitled to file
petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India before the
15jurisdictional High Court. In L.
Chandra Kumar it was clearly held
that the right of judicial review is a
part of the basic structure of the
Constitution and this right must be
interpreted in a manner that it is truly
available to the litigants and should
not be an illusory right.
(Emphasis supplied)”
25. A Division Bench of this Court in its order
dated 19.12.2025 in the case of Arnab
Adhikari & Ors (supra) expressed the
following view:-
“6….If Tribunal was not functional, it
was obligatory on the part of this
Court to hear the matter otherwise the
party will be remediless.”
26. On perusal of the judgment dated
13.01.2026 in the case of Md. Masidul Islam
(supra) a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also
placed its reliance upon the judgment of
Roger Mathew (supra) and came to a finding
that any in whichever State or Union Territory
the Bench under particular Tribunal is not
established or functioning, the litigants of
that State shall have a right to invoke the
extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of a High
16
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
for redressal of their grievance.
27. Keeping in mind the aforementioned
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court if we
look to the factual aspects as involved in the
instant writ petition are concerned it appears
that challenging the order of re-trial dated
13.02.2024 the writ petitioner approached the
said Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 119 of 2024
and the same is still pending. Materials have
been placed before this Court that on
successive occasions the Kolkata Bench of the
Said Tribunal could not function on account
of non-availability of the quorum. Materials
have been placed before this Court that
during the pendency of the said O.A. the
respondent authorities reported before the
said Tribunal that re-trial proceeding have
been concluded and the same has been
recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated
24.07.2024.
28. Admittedly the order of dismissal dated
09.12.2024 was passed during the pendency
of the said original application and the
delinquent/writ petitioner soon thereafter
approached the said Tribunal for an interim
relief by filing M.A. No. 137 of 2024 praying
17
for stay of the order of dismissal dated
09.12.2024. This Court has noticed that even
the said interlocutory application for interim
relief cannot be entertained by the said
Kolkata Bench of the said Tribunal on
account of absence of quorum.
29. In view of such there cannot be any
hesitation to hold that the Kolkata Bench of
the said Tribunal was not available for want
of quorum. Admittedly under Section 14 (2 of
the said Act of 2007) it is obligatory on the
part of the delinquent to approach the
Tribunal first. A High Court cannot be a Court
of first instance as has been held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra
Kumar.
30. However, at this juncture if I look to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Roger Mathew (supra) it appears to
this Court that the Hon’ble Apex Court while
passing the said judgment also considered the
judgment passed in the case of L.Chandra
Kumar (supra) and even then came to a
finding that in the event in a State/Union
Territory the Bench of a particular Tribunal is
not established or functioning the litigants of
that State will have a right to invoke the
18
extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the
jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution for redressal of their
grievances. The same view was taken by our
High Court in the case of Arnab Adhikari &
Ors (supra) and Md. Masidul Islam (supra).
31. On carful perusal of the three reported
decisions as cited from the respondent
authorities it appears to this Court that in the
said three reported decisions namely Chhabil
Dass Agarwal (supra), Nivedita Sharma (supra),
Mathew K.C. (supra) it has been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that the High Court
must not entertain any petition under Article
226 of the Constitution in the event of
availability of the adequate efficacious
alternative remedy.
32. In the said three reported decisions the
Hon’ble Apex Court had no occasion to
consider the circumstances as involved in the
instant writ petition as well as the facts and
circumstances as involved in the judgment of
Rojer Mathew (supra) and thus, those
reported decisions as cited on behalf of the
respondents are distinguishable.
33. At this juncture if I look to Section 27 of
the said Act of 2007 in the light of the
judgment of Rojer Mathew (supra) vis-Ã -vis
19
the judgments passed by our High Court
either in the Division Bench or in the Single
Bench, it appears that it would be highly
unjust if the writ petitioner is asked to
approach the Chair-person of the said
Tribunal for transfer of O.A. No. 119 of 2024
to any other bench since it would cause
tremendous injustice to a litigant since the
same involves not only huge expenditure but
also to travel far distance.
34. In view of the discussion made
hereinabove this Court thus holds
thatwhether the instant writ petition is
maintainable.
35. List this matter for further consideration
(on merit) in the week commencing from April
13, 2026 as Item No.1.
36. It is made clear that on the adjourned date
no prayer for accommodation from either side
will be considered.
37. On the adjourned date, the parties are
directed to file list of dates and events
positively.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
