HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.21 of 2010 (PIL) Anup Kumar Verma …Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents Dated : August 30th 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.4. 2. In order to provide quicker and less expensive justice to the employees of the Union of India working as Armymen, Airmen and Navy personnel, the Union of India made the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. While doing so, the Union legislature called upon the Central Government to establish a Tribunal. The legislature thereupon granted discretion to the Central Government to establish branches of the Tribunal at various sites with a condition that one of the branches shall be at Delhi. 3. In the writ petition, it is being contended that non- establishment of a bench of the Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand is inappropriate exercise of discretion. It has been stated that 80% people of the State of Uttarakhand are employed in Armed Forces, which is an incorrect assertion, 2 and that the distance from Uttarakhand to the nearest branch of the Tribunal is about 450 kms. That apart no effort has been made to show that the discretion used in not establishing a branch of the Tribunal in the State was inappropriate. It has not been shown that having regard to various parameters that are required to be taken into account for establishment of a branch, a branch has been established in a State or at a place and in comparison of such parameters, requirement of establishment of a bench in Uttarakhand is more acute. That being the situation, we feel that the petitioner did not do his home work before filing the writ petition as is expected in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Public spirited persons, while highlighting public matters, are required to conduct research on the subject and highlight everything in the form of a petition. That having not been done, the writ petition is dismissed. In the event, petitioner collects necessary statistics for the purpose of showing that while exercising discretion, the Central Government has acted partially against the State of Uttarakhand, it shall be open to the petitioner to reapproach this Court. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.08.2010 Arti