Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 677 (KER)

U. K. Kunhi Choyi v. Union of India

2002-10-10

A.K.BASHEER, CYRIAC JOSEPH

body2002
Judgment :- Cyriac Joseph, Ag.C.J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.No.4624 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The appellant claims to be a freedom fighter. He submitted an application before the Government of India for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. The said application was rejected by the Government of India as per Ext.P2 letter dated 30th July, 1985. In Ext.P2 letter the appellant was informed that his case did not come under the purview of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 for the reason that he did not produce any acceptable documentary evidence from official records relating to the underground sufferings claimed by him and also for the reason that the State Government did not recommend his case. According to the appellant, he had submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 23.8.1985 to the Government of India requesting for reconsideration of his case and for grant of freedom fighter’s pension to him. It is not stated whether the appellant received any reply to Ext.P3. However, it is stated that he submitted Ext.P4 pro forma to the Government of India. It is also stated that along with Ext.P4 the appellant submitted Ext.P5 abscondence certificate dated 30th September, 1981 issued by one N.K.Damodaran Nair and extract of convict register. There is not date on Ext.P4. It is not stated when it was submitted. Ext.P5 abscondence certificate is dated 30th September, 1981. That is prior to Ext.P2. The extract of convict register is dated 15.6.1973. That is also prior to Ext.P2. Long thereafter the appellant submitted Ext.P7 petition dated 16.6.2000 to the District Collector, Kozhikode. The request in Ext.P7 was to consider the appellant’s application for SSS pension and pass appropriate orders recommending his application for pension to the appropriate authority. Though in Ext.P7 reference is made to a government letter dated 1.3.2000 and a letter dated 6.5.2000 of the District Collector they are not produced. Presumably in response to Ext.P7 petition the appellant was informed by the District Collector, Kozhikode by Ext.P9 letter that the Government as per the letter dated 12.10.2000 had informed that the appellant’s application for SSS pension could not be recommended for want of sufficient documents. Thereupon the appellant filed O.P.No.4624 of 2002 challenging Exts.P2 and P9. 3. Presumably in response to Ext.P7 petition the appellant was informed by the District Collector, Kozhikode by Ext.P9 letter that the Government as per the letter dated 12.10.2000 had informed that the appellant’s application for SSS pension could not be recommended for want of sufficient documents. Thereupon the appellant filed O.P.No.4624 of 2002 challenging Exts.P2 and P9. 3. The challenge against Ext.P2 communication was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the challenge was made nearly 17 years after the issuance of Ext.P2 and hence it was highly belated and the appellant was guilty of laches. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that according to Ext.P2 the appellant did not produce any acceptable documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of sufferings. According to the learned Single Judge when there is no acceptable evidence the claim of the appellant for freedom fighter’s pension was liable to be rejected. The challenge against Ext.P9 letter was also rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay as well as on merits. The learned Single Judge pointed out that even though Ext.P9 communication was dated 20.11.2000 the original petition was filed only on 8th February, 2002. According to the learned Single Judge the original petition did not disclose any valid ground against Ext.P9. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the appellant’s application for freedom fighter’s pension had been rejected on 30.7.1985 as per Ext.P2 and therefore the issue stood finally decided in 1985 and there is no question of taking up the same issue again and again. It is also pointed out that according to Ext.P9 the appellant had not submitted any acceptable evidence to substantiate his claim. 4. We do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. In our view, the learned Single Judge rightly refused to interfere with Exts.P2 and P9. There was inordinate delay on the part of the appellant in challenging the decision of the first respondent rejecting his application for freedom fighter’s pension. Even when the appellant tried to revive the issue by submitting Ext.P7 petition in the year 2000 and got it rejected on 20.11.2000 he did not choose to challenge Ext.P9 till 8.2.2002. Hence, the learned Single Judge was right in taking the view that the original petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Even when the appellant tried to revive the issue by submitting Ext.P7 petition in the year 2000 and got it rejected on 20.11.2000 he did not choose to challenge Ext.P9 till 8.2.2002. Hence, the learned Single Judge was right in taking the view that the original petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. We also agree with the learned Single Judge that on merits also Exts.P2 and P9 did not call for interference by the court as the claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that he did not produce any acceptable evidence to substantiate his claim. This court cannot sit in appeal over the adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence produced by the appellant before the Government to substantiate his claim. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the original petition should not have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches since the issue relates to grant of freedom fighter’s pension. In support of his contention the learned counsel invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 2127). We have read the judgment carefully. It is seen that what the Supreme Court said in the judgment was about the delay on the part of the freedom fighter in approaching the Government or the authority concerned claiming freedom fighter’s pension and not in respect of the delay on the part of the aggrieved person in approaching the court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the decision of the Government or the authority in rejecting the claim for freedom fighter’s pension. It is to be noted that the issue before the Supreme Court was regarding the delay in making the application by the freedom fighter before the authority specified in the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. In our view, the above mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court does not lay down that a writ petition filed by a freedom fighter cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay in challenging the decision of the Government rejecting the claim for freedom fighter’s pension. 6. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal and the writ appeal is dismissed.