$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1141/2025 LT COL AJIT SINGH BALYAN .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Astha Sharma, Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik and Ms. Shriya Mishra, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Neeraj, SPC, Mr. Vedansh Anand, Mr. Sachin Saraswat, Mr. Soumyadip Chakraborty, Advs. with Major Anish Muralidhar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR O R D E R % 30.01.2025 CM APPL. 5616/2025 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1141/2025 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Orders dated 27.08.2024 in O.A. No. 1816/2021 and 26.11.2024 in M.A. No. 5081/2024 in O.A. No. 1816/2021, titled K Maj Ajit Singh Balyan vs. Union of India & Ors., passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘AFT’), rejecting the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/02/2025 at 10:38:44 request of the petitioner for preponement of the date of hearing. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only has the learned AFT rejected the prayer for an early hearing of the petition, but it has also observed that the issue raised in the Original Application filed by the petitioner pertains to policy and administrative matters. He submits that this would raise an issue regarding the maintainability of the Original Application before the learned AFT. 5. We are of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is taking the observation of the learned AFT out of context. The said observation was made only for the purpose of determining whether the matter requires an urgent hearing over and above other pending matters before the learned AFT. It is not an expression of opinion on the nature of the matter or the issue raised therein. 6. As far as the prayer for an urgent hearing is concerned, this Court, in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot govern or regulate the listing of the matters before the learned AFT. 7. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present writ petition. 8. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J JANUARY 30, 2025 SU/KP/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/02/2025 at 10:38:44