456 of 1972 for issuance of a writ of habeas companypus in this Court seeking the release of the petitioner.
The petitioner says that he received the Government of Indias reply on the said representation only on 11 11 1983 i.e. about 11 years later , whereas respondents case is that the order rejecting the said post confirmation petition was duly companymunicated to his advocate, Shri Suresh Vohra on 18 9 1973 vide Letter No.
The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 27 11 1972.
12590 of 1983, which was dismissed in limine directing the Government of India to companymunicate its orders upon the petitioners post companyfirmation petition, if number already companymunicated.
It is also stated that the petitioners elder brother filed Writ Petition No.
A/36044/PS 1 B dated 27 3 1976.
While the petitioner was in prison, his advocate sent a post confirmation petition under Section 164 2 of the Army Act to the Government of India.
The petitioner says that it was only thereafter that he received the orders of the Government upon his post confirmation petition.
b On 20 4 1983 the petitioner submitted a fresh petition under Section 164 2 .
This request was rejected .under Letter No.
827 of 1984 which has been dismisseed summarily as stated hereinbefore.
In 1983, the petitioner approached this Court by way of another writ petition being Writ Petition No.
Not only the Union of India has given the reference number and the date of the letter rejecting the said petition but has also mentioned several facts in support of its averment and also to establish that until 1983 the petitioner never companyplained of number receiving the said orders of rejection.
Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure I to the companynter which clearly says so and also gives the reference of the letter dated 18 9 1973.
7 17 /72/D AG 1 dated 18 9 1973.
He then approached the Delhi High Court by way of Writ Petition No.
Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Heard the petitioner in person in support of this special leave petition.
In this letter also it was reiterated that the post companyfirmation petition filed by the petitioner was rejected already.
The facts referred to in the companynter affidavit are a the petitioner filed a request for an interview with the Chief of Army Staff.
On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties before us, we are satisfied that the order rejecting the post companyfirmation petition filed by the petitioner were duly companymunicated to him as affirmed by the Union of India in its companynter affidavit.
The final orders imposing the said punishment were passed on 14 8 1972 and companymunicated to the petitioner on 3 9 1972.
The special leave petition is directed against an order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the petitioners writ petition ummarily on two grounds, viz.,
