Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 516 (KAR)

RUDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2001-07-06

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2001
D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner who claims to be a person who had undergone imprisonment in connection with Freedom Movement and had been granted freedom fighters' pension pursuant to an application made by him, has challenged the order of the State Government cancelling the pension. ( 2 ) IT appears the petitioner had been granted freedom fighters' pension by the State Government as per the order dated 7-8-1992 under which pension was granted with effect from 22-11-1980 onwards. The petitioner had continued to receive pension after the said order and it appears that the petitioner had been issued with a notice dated 24-7-1996 calling upon him to furnish particulars supporting the factum of his imprisonment in connection with the Freedom Movement. According to the petitioner, petitioner had responded to this notice and had also produced several documents like Jail Certificate and affidavits supportive of this claim that he had undergone imprisonment. It was also mentioned as per this reply dated 5-8-1996 that the said documents may be accepted as supportive of his claim and the grant of pension in his favour be continued. ( 3 ) THREE years thereafter, it appears, the State Government has issued another notice dated 5-11-1999 again calling upon the petitioner for production of supportive documents for his claim and to be present for an enquiry in this matter and hearing as on 9-12-1999 before the under Secretary for the Government of Karnataka, Administrative Department. The petitioner who had already submitted supportive documents as per his letter dated 5-8-1996, appears to have expressed his inability to be present for the enquiry on that day and had sent a telegraphic communication seeking for any other date of hearing. This had been followed by a letter dated 20-12-1999 whereby the petitioner sought for extension of time if any further material was required to be placed before the concerned Secretary. The petitioner reiterated that he had already furnished the relevant documents in this regard and he has been receiving pension based on the same. This had been followed by a letter dated 20-12-1999 whereby the petitioner sought for extension of time if any further material was required to be placed before the concerned Secretary. The petitioner reiterated that he had already furnished the relevant documents in this regard and he has been receiving pension based on the same. However, the Government, being oblivious of these developments and even without referring to any of these developments, appears to have passed an order dated 22-8-2000 cancelling the grant of pension in favour of the petitioner to be made effective immediately holding that that the petitioner is not able to substantiate his claim for pension and further that he had remained absent. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this court in writ jurisdiction. ( 4 ) SRI B. B. Ballari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order based on irrelevant considerations and has not at all taken into note the earlier documents that had been produced by the petitioner even as early as in the year 1996. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that this order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as in spite of the petitioner requesting further opportunity if the documents already produced were not sufficient, the respondent proceeded to pass adverse order without considering the same and not affording a proper opportunity to the petitioner if any documents were required at all. ( 5 ) SRI T. A. Ramachandraiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that the petitioner having not produced supporting documents and having not appeared before the Enquiring Authority, is not entitled to claim the relief prayed for in the petition and the order is justified in the circumstances and cannot be interfered by this Court. ( 6 ) ON a perusal of the impugned order, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-F, it becomes obvious that this order has been passed in a mechanical manner without reference to the facts of the present case. There is no reference at all in this order as to the documents that have been produced by the petitioner, but it only speaks of documents which are not produced. There is no reference at all in this order as to the documents that have been produced by the petitioner, but it only speaks of documents which are not produced. In a proceeding of the nature held by the Under secretary of the first respondent, for the purpose of ascertaining continuation of pension which had already been granted in favour of a person claiming to be a freedom fighter, the enquiry should be to find out as to whether the material placed by the claimant is sufficient in the context of the scheme and as to whether it is a reliable material which can entitle for freedom fighters' pension to the petitioner. The emphasis should not be on what is not produced but to examine objectively what material has been placed before the Government or the Enquiring authority and to what extent that will be sufficient to accept the claim of the person for grant of freedom fighters' pension. We should not lose sight of the fact that an enquiry is being held as of now in respect of an event which had taken place more than fifty to sixty years ago. No one would have preserved the documents for the purpose of producing it even if there were any such documents, in an enquiry of the present nature. The mere fact that an impeccable document supporting the claim of the petitioner is not produced, is not sufficient to automatically reject the claim of the petitioner. The authorities should objectively assess the material which such persons have been able to gathey and place them before the Government. Perhaps it is in this context that in the absence of a Jail Certificate, affidavits issued by two co-prisoners, is held to be sufficient under the scheme to sustain the claim of imprisonment. If there is any credible material which indicates that the person has undergone imprisonment, that should be accepted rather than trying to find defects or lacuna by pointing out as to what has not been produced. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion, that the impugned order has not been passed on a proper or objective assessment of the material placed before the concerned authority. The order is bad as being one passed without due application of mind and without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion, that the impugned order has not been passed on a proper or objective assessment of the material placed before the concerned authority. The order is bad as being one passed without due application of mind and without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, the impugned order is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. The first respondent is directed to consider afresh the matter of cancellation of the grant of pension in favour of the petitioner by affording an opportunity of hearing to enable the petitioner to place any further material in his possession before the concerned authority. Even if the petitioner is not in a position to place any further material, it is the duty of the authorities to consider all the materials that have already been placed on record by the petitioner and arrive at a proper decision. ( 8 ) AS per the impugned order cancelling the grant of pension is quashed. Petitioner will be entitled for continuation of grant of pension until further order is passed by the authorities concerned. The arrears of pension may also be paid to the pensioner. ( 9 ) RULE issued and made absolute. No costs. --- *** --- .