BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ‘ 122 L1 $mgle$am§ Review Petition No...... .. . /2010 min ............llfb.zo M/ ; PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DATED 1 4 2010 PASSED IN W P NO 565/1 996 FLYING OFFICER SANJAY ARYA AND ANOTHER VS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS PETITIONER SP Arya q w! £3 7y / S’ID ”floq $eur Pal VERSUS Nb 230/l‘1abaw‘ia puvg M Mvou c & RESPONDENTS . Union of India and oth’s ~ IN THE MATTER OF W.P. No2565/96 PETITIONER , Flying Officer Sanjay Arya & another VERSUS RESPONDENTS Union of India and 2 Kzz/zoto . others . \Q‘z PaMw. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPU£ REVIEW PETITION NO.134 'OF 2010 PETITIONER S.P. Arya Versus RESPONDENTS ' Union of India & Others {Petition for review of order dated 1—4-2010 passed in W.P.No.2565 of 1996 (Flying Officer Sanjay Arya & Another v. The Union of India & Others)} (By Circulation in Chamber) (Single Bench : Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) ORDER (Passed on this 5"‘day ofApriI, 201 1) The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Ruie 90 under Chapter Vl of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. Review of the order dated 1-4—2010 is sought on the ground that under the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for short ”the Act’), the Armed Forces Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) cannot exercise the power in the matters, which are pending consideration before the High Court. Section 14 of the Act, 2007 provides for saving a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, except which is othenNise expressly provided in this Act. The cause of action, which Was pending consideration before the Court, was in relation of service matters, which under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, is to be transferred to the Tribunal on its establishment, under this Act. Accordingly, the order dated 1-4—2010 was passed. Thus, there is no error apparent on the record, as pleaded by the review petitioner in the order sought to be reviewed. As a result and in view of foregoing, the review petition is dismissed. Sdl- , Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ‘