In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

The review petition is being filed seeking review of the order dated 28.07.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.10307/2020 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, this Court has failed to consider the provision of 6 (2) of the Rules of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008. Rule 6 (2) of the aforesaid rule has not been taken into consideration by this Court while disposing off the writ petition. It is submitted that although a statutory appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against the order by which the petitioner has been sent to jail in view of the order passed in the General Court Martial proceedings at Hyderabad. It is submitted that the appeal is provided under the Act and 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RP.No.772/2020 (Pradeep Singh Bhadouria Vs. Union of India & Others) the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 164 (2) of the Army Act, 1950. But as the AFT Jabalpur who is having the original appellate jurisdiction the Administrative Member and the Judicial Member are not available. Therefore, the AFT is not regularly functioning. In such circumstances, the appeal cannot be heard. It is submitted that the petitioner is due to complete his period of conviction and only six months remain and in view of the judgment passed in the case of Balkrishna Ram Vs. Union of India & Anothers in S.L.P. (Civil) No.6999/2017 Civil Appeal No.131/2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no rider before this Court to entertain the writ petition. It is submitted that it is only a question with respect to suspension of sentence of the present petitioner who is undergoing the conviction. It is submitted that the Procedural Rules of 2008 Rule 6 Sub-Rule 2 has not been taken into consideration by this Court while deciding the writ petition. No other ground is being raised by the petitioner for seeking review of this order.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and has argued that a detailed and exhaustive order has been passed by this Court taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case and placing reliance upon several judgments passed by this Court as well as the Supreme Court has passed the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any glaring irregularities apparent on the face of the record to enable this Court to entertain this review petition. In absence of glaring 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RP.No.772/2020 (Pradeep Singh Bhadouria Vs. Union of India & Others) irregularities apparent on the face of the record no review is maintainable. At the most the petitioner ought to have filed a writ appeal against the impugned order if he is not satisfied with the order. Learned counsel for the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the review petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the writ petition was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This Court has not decided on the merits of the case. Only the jurisdiction aspect was taken into consideration and the order was passed. The petitioner has not pointed out any glaring irregularities apparent on the face of the record to enable this Court to entertain the review petition. The scope of review is limited for which the law is well settled in the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission ; (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held as under :-

Further in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta and Anr ; (2008) 8 SCC 612 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

Furthermore, a five-Judge Bench of the Federal Court in Hari Sankar Pal Vs. Anath Nath Mitter reported in 1949 FCR 36 while considering the question whether the Calcutta High Court was justified in not granting relief to non-appearing party, whose position was similar to that of the successful appellant, has held as under :

Taking into consideration the the aforesaid law laid down with respect to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the review petition, this Court does not find it appropriate to entertain the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

E-copy of this order be provided to the petitioner and it is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.