Serial No. 130 Suppl; Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1429/2025 CM(3708/2025). ALI AMIR (LADAKH CASE). …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Danish Yousuf, Advocate Mr. Irfan Rasool, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI with Ms. Rehana, Advocate …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE. ORDER 24.06.2025 01. The petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution, questioning the legality of the order dated 25.04.2018 whereby the petitioner has been discharged from the service. The petitioner has impugned the order of discharge on various grounds. 02. However, Mr. T.M. Shamsi, learned DSGI entered his appearance on behalf of the respondents and has apprized the Court that the Armed Force Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu has already been constituted under the provisions of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is required to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. 03. Heard and considered. 04. Confronted with this position, I have gone through the provisions of Armed Force Tribunal Act, 2007, more particularly in terms of Section 33 of the Act of 2007, there is exclusion of jurisdiction of the courts once the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is extended in relation to the service matters falling within the domain of Armed Forces Tribunal in terms of Act of 2007. Furthermore Section 34 of the Act of 2007 provides that all the pending proceedings before any court including the High Courts or other authority immediately after the date of establishment of the Tribunal stand transferred to the Tribunal, meaning thereby that once the Tribunal is constituted and its jurisdiction is extended then as a necessary corollary, the aggrieved person has to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal, and the jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked. 05. I am fortified in my view by the law laid down in Supreme Court in the case titled as “Union of India Vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and Anr”, reported in (2015), 6 SCC 773, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the remedy is available under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, the High Court should not entertain the petition(s). 06. In view of the statutory and efficacious remedy available and particularly bar contained under Section 33 and 34 of the Act of 2007, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ petition. 07. Accordingly, the instant Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available under law. (Shahzad Azeem) Judge SRINAGAR 24.06.2025. Showkat Khan