* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM No.6220/2010 in W.P.(C) No.9450/2009 Date of Decision: 01st June, 2010 LEKH RAJ SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. V.K. Sharma, Adv. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) CM No.6220/2010 1. The petitioner had filed the writ petition complaining non-disposal of a petition filed by him under Section 154(2) of the Army Act laying a challenge to the findings and sentence of the Summary Court Martial. The writ petition was disposed of by an order passed on 29th May, 2009 directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the said petition after due consideration, if not already done so, within a period of four weeks from the date of the passing of the order. 2. Along with the present application, the petitioner has enclosed a copy of the communication dated 27th May, 2009 enclosing the order which was passed by the Chief of the Army Staff on the petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act which has been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, so far as CM No.6220/2010 in WP (C) No.9450/2009 Page No.1 the compliance with the order dated 29th May, 2009 is concerned, the same has been effected. 3. By way of the present application, the applicant makes a grievance that the respondents have failed to consider a petition made by him and have therefore not complied with the order dated 29th May, 2009. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner has subsequently submitted a petition dated nil of July, 2009 to the Secretary of the Government of India purporting to be a second petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act. On this petition, the respondents, by a letter dated 3rd of September, 2009, have informed the petitioner that the remedy under Section 164(2) was available only once and that the petitioner has already availed the same. The petitioner was informed that he could file a petition under Section 179 of the Army Act. The communication dated 3rd September, 2009 of the respondents clearly explains the correct legal position. 5. The petition under Section 164(2) stands rejected by the order communicated on 27th of May, 2009. The grievance of the petitioner so far as the subject matter of the order dated 29th of May, 2009 does not subsist and the present application is wholly misconceived. 6. In case the petitioner proceeds in the matter in accordance with law and seeks to file a petition under Section 179 of the Army Act as suggested in the communication dated 3rd September, 2009, it shall be open to the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law and prescribed procedure. 7. We make it clear that such petition and orders passed thereon cannot be made the subject matter of consideration in the present writ petition and no application should be entertained by the Registry on this account. CM No.6220/2010 in WP (C) No.9450/2009 Page No.2 8. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the action and orders of the respondents on such petition, the same gives rise to separate independent cause of action. This application is disposed of in the above terms. GITA MITTAL, J INDERMEET KAUR, J JUNE 01, 2010 aa CM No.6220/2010 in WP (C) No.9450/2009 Page No.3