- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54357-DB RP No. 214 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO. 214 OF 2025 BETWEEN: EX-SEPOY MANJUNATH V S S/O LATE SRI SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, EX-MEG AND CENTRE, NOW R/AT VILLAGE VEERAPURA POST THEETHA TALUK, KORATAGERE DISTRICT TUMAKURU 572129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH P VARGHESE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SOUTH BLOCK, DHQ PO NEW DELHI 110011. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54357-DB RP No. 214 of 2025 2. THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF COAS'S SECRETARIAT ARMED HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTH BLOCK, DHQ PO NEW DELHI - 110011. 3. COMMANDANT AND OFFICER IN CHARGE (RECORDS) ABHILEKH KARYALAYA MADRAS ENGINEERING GROUP PIN 900493 C/O 56 APO. 4. EX COMMANDING OFFICER DEPOT BATTALION MADRAS ENGINEERING REGIMEN C/O 56, APO 5. COMMANDING OFFICER 6 ENGINEERING REGIMENT C/O 56, APO. 6. EX-ADJUNCT (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER) DEPOT BATTALION MADRAS ENGINEERING GROUP PIN - 900493 C/O 56 APO. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SINCHANA M R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2025 PASSED IN WP - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54357-DB RP No. 214 of 2025 NO.15767/2024 AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) This Court has disposed of the review petitioner's writ petition in W.P. No. 15767/2024 on 29.01.2025. The petitioner, an ex-defense personnel, has filed this writ petition impugning the outcome in the Court-Martial proceedings against him and the subsequent appeal proceedings, while calling in question the dismissal certificate. 2. This Court has dismissed the writ petition in the light of the fact that the petitioner himself has admitted in his pleadings that he had availed remedy - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54357-DB RP No. 214 of 2025 under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 [for short ‘2007 Act’] and that the Supreme Court had dismissed his petition on 24.04.2014 observing that there was no substantial question of law that is of public importance. This Court has also considered the petitioner's reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Parashotam Dass1 [which is decided on 21.03.2023] observing that though the Apex Court had reserved liberty to certain defense personnel, it will not apply to the petitioner because he was not a party in the proceedings. 3. Dr. X.M. Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contending that there is sufficient cause for such exercise and to restore the proceedings for a decision on merits because the Apex Court, after noticing Sections 30 and 31 of the 2007 Act, has observed that the High Courts could exercise jurisdiction under 1 (2025) 5 SCC 786 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54357-DB RP No. 214 of 2025 Article 226 of the Constitution when the circumstances warrant. 4. Dr. X.M. Joseph canvasses such exercise is warranted in the present case because [a] the investigator who has enquired into the complaint against the petitioner of overstay has sat in judgment in the Court- Martial Proceedings and [b] the petitioner has been compelled to sign on dotted lines. Ms. Sinchana M R, the learned counsel for the first to sixth respondents, is heard in the light of this canvass. This Court opines that there is no reason for review of this Court’s order dated 29.01.2025 in WP No. 15767/2024 because of the following circumstances upon considering the Supreme Court's observation on the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court’s observations are: "24. We have given thought to the matter, keeping in mind the last aspect emphasized by the learned Additional Solicitor General, dealing with the importance of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and its jurisdiction being distinct from other tribunals. We are conscious of the importance of the role - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54357-DB RP No. 214 of 2025 performed by the Armed Forces and the discipline level required by these services. Thus, often many jurisprudential principles of other tribunals cannot be imported into the decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Armed Forces have their own rules and procedures, and if there is proper exercise of jurisdiction in accordance with the norms of the Armed Forces, the High Court or this Court have been circumspect in interfering with the same, keeping in mind the significance of the role performed by the Armed Forces. 25. While we agree with the aforesaid principle, we are unable to appreciate the observations in the case of Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr.", which sought to put an embargo on the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, diluting a very significant provision of the Constitution which also forms the part of basic structure. The principles of basic structure have withstood the test of time and are emphasized in many judicial pronouncements as an ultimate test. This is not something that can be doubted. That being the position, the self- restraint of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is distinct from putting an embargo on the High Court in exercising this jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while judicially reviewing a decision arising from an order of the Tribunal." 5. The petitioner is dismissed from service in 2004, and his appeal under Section 30 with the Apex - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54357-DB RP No. 214 of 2025 Court is decided on 24.04.2014. The writ petition is filed 10 years thereafter, and the petitioner seeks review, asserting the need to re-examine certain factual aspects stating that there is sufficient reason. However, a salient in law is the principle of finality. A proceeding once concluded should remain final, and this proposition must be applied completely and with greater rigour when it comes to the Armed Forces. The petitioner’s explanation for filing the writ petition after ten years of the dismissal of the appeal by the Apex Court is that he was making different representations and running from pillar to post, but that is too general to make an exception to the afore proposition. 6. The Apex Court has examined whether Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked in cases given the conditions under Section 31 of the Act, and the Apex Court has opined that Writ Courts could exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 as they have always interfered with the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal keeping in mind the consequence of the role performed by the Armed Forces. This Court is of the view that there - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54357-DB RP No. 214 of 2025 cannot be a review of a decision rendered in the backdrop of the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal in 2014, and admittedly when the writ petition is filed ten years thereafter. Therefore, there is no reason for a review of this Court’s order dated 29.01.2025 in WP No. 15767/2024. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE NV