ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI O.A.No. 337 of 2016 TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017/2ND PHALGUNA, 1938 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE VICE ADMIRAL M.P.MURALIDHARAN, AVSM & BAR, NM, MEMBER (A) APPLICANT: N.SIVANANDAN, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O LATE NANU, (EX NO.2553853 N HAVILDAR OF INDIAN ARMY) F SEPOY OF GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE (EX NO.170804 F),NADAYIL KUTTIYIL HOUSE, BHARANIKAVU NORTH PO., ALLEPPEY DIST, KERALA - 690 503. BY ADV. SRI. T.R.JAGADEESH versus RESPONDENTS:- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE , SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 011. 2. OIC CSD CANTEEN, INS VENDURUTHY, COCHIN. 3. THE MANAGER, CSD CANTEEN. NAVAL BASE, COCHIN. BY ADV.SRI.M.RAJENDRAKUMAR, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL O.A.No. 337 of 2016 -: 2 :- ORDER Satheesachandran, Member (J): The applicant, an Ex-serviceman, has filed the above application for issue of direction to the second respondent to return the Canteen Smart Card seized from him. 2. The case of the applicant is that he had served in the Indian Army as well as in General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) and for such services he had been given two Ex-servicemen identity cards. He would state that he is entitled to avail Ex- servicemen facilities, including canteen facilities, for the services rendered in Army as well in GREF. On the basis of the two services rendered by him he got separate Smart Cards in relation to such services for purchase of grocery and liquor. However, when he approached the OIC Canteen, Naval Base, Kochi and produced both these Smart cards, they were seized stating that a service personnel cannot be in possession of two cards. He was not issued with a seizure memo over the taking of the smart cards from his possession and despite request for returning them, O.A.No. 337 of 2016 -: 3 :- the cards were not returned, is his case for issue of direction to the second respondent for return of the cards to him. 3. Notice given, Legal Officer Capt. Preeti Sharma appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted that cheating the authorities the applicant had obtained two smart cards with different personal numbers and the scrutiny of the records revealed that he had been drawing additional liquor above his entitlement. 4. After hearing the counsel on both sides with reference to the facts and circumstances presented in the case, we notice that the applicant has rushed to this Tribunal without exhausting the statutory remedy available to him. We, at this stage, do not wish to express opinion nor even any observation over the merits of the case canvassed by the applicant, which is repudiated by the respondents contending that he had cheated the authorities in getting two smart cards with different personal numbers and using them had even drawn additional liquor above his actual entitlement. Over the seizure of the cards from his O.A.No. 337 of 2016 -: 4 :- possession as alleged, the applicant has a remedy of approaching the appropriate authority concerned explaining his case, if any, over his entitlement to have two smart cards and of using both of them. In case the applicant approaches the competent authority who is having jurisdiction to consider the legality and correctness of the seizure alleged by filing a representation explaining his case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, such authority shall consider and dispose such representation in accordance with the rules applicable expeditiously, at any rate, within a further period of four months and communicate the decision to the applicant. 5. Subject to the above direction, the Original Application is disposed. 6. There will be no order as to costs. 7. Issue free copy of this order to both sides. Sd/- Sd/- VICE ADMIRAL M.P. MURALIDHARAN, JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) tm. /True Copy/ Prl. Private Secretary.