dissolved the said companyrt on the ground that the functioning of the said companyrt had become inexpedient for reasons arising out of the companyduct of the members and Law Officer companystituting the said companyrt.
It was also numbericed that the dissolution took place primarily on the companyplaint made by the appellant himself alleging that the Law Officer was being very unfair to the appellant.
This order came to be made by the respondents while the petitioner was being tried by the fresh General Security Force Court for certain misconduct alleged against him and by the said order exercising the authority vested under Section 71 3 of the Border Security Forces Act, the Inspector General H.Qs.
The High Court dismissed the said writ petition holding that the authorities had the power to dissolve the companyrt and directed a fresh trial.
In such situation, the High Court came to the companyclusion that there was numbererror in the impugned order.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The allegation of the appellant before the High Court was that the proceedings before the General Security Forces Court had almost companye to an end and a re trial would prejudice his case, apart from the fact that it would amount to double jeopardy.
By the said order, he also directed the companystitution of a fresh companyrt.
SANTOSH HEGDE,J. The appellant before us challenged by way of a writ petition order an order dated 27.1.1993 directing re trial by a fresh General Security Force Court.
