Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 392 (MP)

Saraswati Tripathi v. State of M. P.

2003-03-07

A.K.MISHRA

body2003
JUDGMENT Petitioner in the instant writ petition claims the award for "Sampradayik Sadbhawna Ewam Dharm Nirpekshta" instituted by the State Govt. Petitioner approached this Court earlier with respect to the award of 1998 by way of filing writ petition No. 2108/01 which was decided on 3.5.2001 by brother Shri Dipak Misra, J. without expressing any opinion whether the petitioner deserved the award or not, it was directed that the respondent No. 2 shall forward the case of the petitioner on proper investigation, if the averments are true, action was to be taken within a period of four weeks from date of order and the State Govt. shall consider the same in accordance with the advertisement as expeditiously as possible. Til1 the government takes a decision in that regard no final order shall be passed with regard to the award pertaining to the year of 1998. The case of the petitioner was also directed to be considered for subsequent year if permissible in law. Petitioner submits that case of the petitioner has been illegally rejected by the respondents for the award. Petitioner has filed the certificate P. 4 to P. 8 to show services rendered by her. Petitioner has further averred that on 2nd August, 1998 during heavy rain in District Sidhi a girl about 7 years was drowning in Sukha Nala. The petitioner saved precious life of child and a panchanama was prepared. Petitioner's bravery was appreciated as per letter (P. 10) by" the President and Ward member of Nagar Palika Sidhi. State Govt. Respondent No.1 on 4.2.1999 had issued an advertisement in Rojgar and Nirman newspaper for award and the selected candidates shall be awarded of Rs. 1,00,000/- and will also be entitled for Govt. Services, on being found fit for award, petitioner submitted an application along with all the relevant documents on 10.3.1999. Earlier the application was rejected on the ground that application was received after 31.3.1999. The rejection order (P. 14) was challenged in W.P. No. 2108/01 decided on 3.5.2001 by brother Shri Dipak Misra, J. and the aforesaid directions were issued. Contempt petition was filed as the action was not taken. Contempt proceedings were dropped and respondents were directed to pass the order on time bound basis. Petitioner submits that case of petitioner was recommended by the Collector, Sidhi and forwarded to the Secretary, GAD on 29.6.2001 for consideration. Contempt petition was filed as the action was not taken. Contempt proceedings were dropped and respondents were directed to pass the order on time bound basis. Petitioner submits that case of petitioner was recommended by the Collector, Sidhi and forwarded to the Secretary, GAD on 29.6.2001 for consideration. Petitioner was informed that she has not been found fit for the award, application has been rejected, hence, the present writ petition has been filed to quash the order P. 18 dated 18.3.2002. A return has been filed by the respondents contending that the State Govt. with a view to encourage religious/ communal harmony decided to give award to the persons who have done exceptionally good work in various fields as provided in policy (R.I.). The award may be given only to the youth between the age group of 18 to 35 who have saved the life of a person which may be said to be an act of communal harmony. Policy R. 1 and R. 2 of the awards was notified in gazette. Panchnama P. 9 is not signed by any Govt. officer but is signed by husband of the petitioner.District Level Committee has not recommended the case of petitioner. The proceedings of District Level Committee (R. 4) and (R. 5), report of the S.P. (R. 6) have been filed. Shri P.K. Asati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that case of the petitioner has been dealt with arbitrarily and has not been considered in proper perspective. When this Court has passed the order, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered in accordance with the scheme. That has not been done, hence, impugned order be quashed. Ms. Seema Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents, has supported the order and contended that the scheme is not applicable as act of petitioner of saving life of 7 years girl is true; being niece of petitioner, act was not towards the preservation of communal harmony and in any case the order is elaborate. Reasons have been mentioned and matter is not such which requires interference of this Court. The main submission of the petitioner is that petitioner saved the life of the young girl of seven years. Reasons have been mentioned and matter is not such which requires interference of this Court. The main submission of the petitioner is that petitioner saved the life of the young girl of seven years. On enquiry it has been found that the girl is niece of the petitioner which relationship petitioner has not mentioned in writ petition and there was no rain between 24.7.1998 and 1.8.1998, thus, incident has been doubted. Whatever that may be the fact remains that the act of saving the life of niece cannot be said to be an act towards preserving of communal harmony which is the aim and object of scheme. On a bare perusal of notification R. 1 dated 5.12.1998 by which the awards have been instituted, para 2 it is clear that only when a person has put his life in danger for the purpose of preserving of communal harmony and his act is towards to the maintaining communal harmony, is entitled for award. The certificates (P. 4 and P. 8) filed by the petitioner which are general in nature but no specific incident is reported. Perusal of the impugned order (R. 4) shows that matter has been considered in extensive detail and petitioner has not been found fit for the award, in my opinion, matter has been considered in extensive detail. Inquiry has been made. Report was called. I do not find any sufficient· ground to make interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the matter of grant of such awards the scope of interference in a writ petition is limited. Matter has been objectively considered. Inquiry has been held. Resultantly, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.