SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is yet another unfortunate case of an elderly citizen of the country who had participated in the Freedom movement and who had been provided some solace in the evening of his life in the form of Freedom Fighter Pension under a scheme envisaged by the state Government known as Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme") being deprived of the benefit under the Scheme by the irresponsible conduct and inept handling of the matter by the respondents. ( 2 ) THIS is the second round of litigation before this Court by the petitioner filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claiming that he being a prisoner who had participated in the freedom movement during the year 1942-43 and also during the year 1947 had applied for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension under the Scheme to the State Government. The application had been supported by a certificate issued by one Sri B. G. Chandrashekarappa, who was a co-prisoner at the time of imprisonment and who was a former Member of Legislature Assembly at the time of issuing of certificate. The State Government on perusal of the application and the supporting documents, submitted by the petitioner by an order dated 29. 09. 1983 granted Freedom Figther Pension in favour of the petitioner and the payment of pension continued till above the year 1997. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, subsequent to the grant of pension, it appears that, the petitioner was served with an order dated 3. 7. 1997 purporting to cancel the order in favour of the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner had not produced necessary supporting documents to prove the factum of his imprisonment during his freedom struggle. Being aggrieved by this sudden cancellation of pension that had been granted in his favour, the petitioner had been approached this Court by filing W. P. No. 2757/1998. This Court disposed of the said Writ petition in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 23. 02. Being aggrieved by this sudden cancellation of pension that had been granted in his favour, the petitioner had been approached this Court by filing W. P. No. 2757/1998. This Court disposed of the said Writ petition in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 23. 02. 1998, quashing the order of cancellation of pension with direction to the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before any such action for cancellation is taken and also by furnishing a copy of the report of the Deputy Commissioner said to have been submitted to the Government based on which the action for cancellation had been taken by the Government. However, this Court though quashed the impugned order of cancellation, nevertheless kept in abeyance the resumption of payment of pension in favour of the petitioner as the matter was being remanded and fresh order was required to be passed by the Government and therefore only after passing of fresh orders that resumption of payment of pension could be decided. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENT to remanding the matter to the respondents, the matter has been again being looked into by the respondents but, not exactly in the manner in which this Court had directed. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the Deputy Commissioner's report recommending cancellation of his pension. The petitioner who was asked to produce additional documents in support of his claim did appear before the concerned Enquiry Officer and filed an affidavit, dated 9. 3. 1999 (copy of it Annexure-"g1") indicating that in fact he had undergone imprisonment and by clearly narrating the nature of his participation in the Freedom Movement and that his father was shot dead by the police while in the act of disobedience and further as to how the authorities concerned had gone into the entire circumstances of his claim and being satisfied had recommended grant of pension based on which as per the government Order, dated 29. 9. 1983 petitioner had been granted pension. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for resumption of his pension immediately. The 1st respondent thereafter passed the impugned order dated 22. 6. 1999 which indicates that on a comprehensive examination of the entire circumstances and the claim of the petitioner, the Government is confirming the earlier order of cancellation of pension dated 3. 7. 9. 1983 petitioner had been granted pension. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for resumption of his pension immediately. The 1st respondent thereafter passed the impugned order dated 22. 6. 1999 which indicates that on a comprehensive examination of the entire circumstances and the claim of the petitioner, the Government is confirming the earlier order of cancellation of pension dated 3. 7. 1997 and in fact stated that the pension granted under the Scheme was being cancelled again as per Clause 7 of the said Scheme. ( 6 ) IT is aggrieved by this order the petitioner has approached this Court again. Sri R. S. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondents have yet again committed the same mistake of not affording a proper opportunity to the petitioner notwithstanding the earlier direction issued by this Court while passing the order in W. P. No. 2757/1998 and that the petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the report of the Deputy commissioner at all and further that though the petitioner in fact did appear in person at the time of enquiry and reiterated his claim of pension and also pointed out that he had already submitted the co- prisoner certificate indicating the factum of his imprisonment during the freedom struggle the authorities without taking into consideration any of these aspects have mechanically passed the order impugned. However, the impugned order does recite that the petitioner was required to appear and answer the proposal to cancel pension in the context on the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, submitted to the enquiry authority. It merely recites that the petitioner has not produced any supporting documents in the form of Jail certificate or any certificate for undergoing imprisonment during the relevant time nor has he furnished material with effect that the petitioner was a freedom fighter. Unfortunately, the order shows that the petitioner had not put-forth any claim at all nor any argument to substantiate the fact that he was a freedom fighter. Unfortunately, the order shows that the petitioner had not put-forth any claim at all nor any argument to substantiate the fact that he was a freedom fighter. The order is clearly untenable as it recites findings in the later portion of the order which is inconsistent with the finding in the beginning of the order and the petitioner had not been provided with a copy of the report of the Deputy Commissioner notwithstanding the direction issued by this Court and it is obvious that the contents of the report of the Deputy Commissioner had yet again been made the basis for passing the present order. The order also ignores that the claim of the petitioner is quite consistent to the material on record. The said order does not refer at all to the co-prisoner certificate which the petitioner had submitted earlier and whether it is in any way insufficient for entertaining the petitioner's claim for grant of pension. The order and the basis of it is not only in contravention of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of Writ Petition but is also clearly a non-speaking order and has been passed not based on relevant considerations. ( 7 ) SRI R. S. Hegde, learned Counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court that under similar circumstances, the Government has, based on the very report of the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the grant of pension in favour of such claimants who had also put-forth their claim only supported with the certificate issued by the co- prisoner and one such order dated 28. 3. 2001 is brought to the notice of the Court by producing the copy of the same as Annexure-"o" as an additional document by the petitioner. It is obvious that the respondents have been adopted different standards in taking decisions as to the entitlement of the freedom fighter pension under the Scheme whereas in the case of one applicant the respondents are holding that the production of mere co-prisoner certificate is sufficient to entitle the person for grant of freedom fighter pension, in the case of the petitioner, it is said that it is not sufficient and the grant of pension is being cancelled. The action on the part of the respondents are grossly arbitrary to say the least. ( 8 ) SRI T. A. Ramachandriah, learned Addl. The action on the part of the respondents are grossly arbitrary to say the least. ( 8 ) SRI T. A. Ramachandriah, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents sought to support the order impugned in the Writ Petition by submitting that the petitioner has not substantiated his claim for having undergone imprisonment by any other material other than the co-prisoner certificate. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate is not in a position to answer the question as to whether the Government had not acted upon on such co-prisoner certificate in passing such orders as indicated in the Government Order dated 28. 3. 2001, passed in the case of yet another applicant for grant of freedom fighter pension. ( 9 ) WHAT is ironical is pension had been granted in the other case as per the order dated 28. 03. 2001 relying upon the co-prisoner certificate issued by Sri B. G. Chandrashekarappa who had issued such co-prisoner certificate in favour of the petitioner also. ( 10 ) THE public authorities are required to act in a fair and no narbitrary manner. Particularly in a matter which is sensitive and where the object of the Scheme is to extend some facility and as a mark of recognition and duty to those elderly citizens who had participated in the freedom movement. The subject matter should have been approached with a sense of responsibility and with understanding. ( 11 ) FURTHER the respondents not only acted in a most insensitive manner, but have also acted in the most arbitrary manner of picking and choosing persons whom they want to favour and whom they can discard. Such conduct on the part of the respondents is most reprehensible to say the least. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances, the impugned order dated 22. 06. 1999 is clearly unsustainable and fails all tests of administrative law. The order is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. The next question that will arise is what should happen as a consequence of quashing the order cancelling the pension that had been granted earlier. The earlier order dated 29. 09. 1983 of granting the pension is restored. 1999 is clearly unsustainable and fails all tests of administrative law. The order is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. The next question that will arise is what should happen as a consequence of quashing the order cancelling the pension that had been granted earlier. The earlier order dated 29. 09. 1983 of granting the pension is restored. Though this Court on the earlier occasion did not direct resumption of payment of pension and had directed that such resumption may be kept in abeyance till passing of further orders by the concerned authorities, the manner in which the authorities have conducted themselves and disregarded the direction issued by this Court while holding fresh enquiry and in passing order belies the confidence reposed in them that the matter will receive a fair deal at their hands. It is submitted before the Court that the petitioner has been harassed and put to unnecessary hardship and misery. Therefore, I am of the view that pension being kept in abeyance is not necessary any more and the respondents should be and are directed to resume the payment of pension to the petitioner and they are also directed to pay the arrears of pension up to date from the earlier date of cancellation as on 3. 7. 1997, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, it is made clear that if the authorities propose to take any action for cancellation of pension afresh, they should do so only after putting the petitioner on notice, after furnishing of such materials which perhaps they have been in position which indicates the case or any cause for cancellation of pension, give a fair and proper hearing to the petitioner and then arrive at a considered decision in consonance with the provisions of the Scheme and in consonance with fair play and fair procedure. ( 14 ) BEFORE parting with this case, the authorities are to be cautioned that in the matter of grant of pension under the Karnataka state Freedom Fighters' Welfare Rules, 1964, the authorities should be guided more by consideration for grant of pension in favour of eligible persons and by approach the question from the angle of granting of pension in the light of material placed before them by the applicants and if such can be said to be sufficient for satisfying the requirements under the Scheme. The authorities should not approach the claim for pension from the angle of rejecting the same on one or the other ground but should explore the possibility under the Scheme to grant pension. To put it in a nutshell the approach should be positive and not negative. In a case where pension has already been granted based on the material which had been produced by the applicant earlier and the authorities being satisfied for grant of pension, had granted pension, in the matter of cancellation of such pension already granted the authorities should be cautious and should adopt an attitude of understanding and pension granted can be cancelled only if there are valid and tenable reasons for such action and not based on administration direction from the higher officers. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued and the impugned order dated 22. 6. 1999 under Annexure-H is quashed. Rule issued and made absolute. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was made to approach this Court for the second time and compelled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, by the mindless order passed by the respondents. Cost of Rs. 5,000. 00 is imposed on the respondents. --- *** --- .