Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 433 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Singeshwar Singh

2006-05-08

J.N.BHATT, S.N.HUSSAIN

body2006
Judgment 1. After having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, the delay of 125 days is condoned as there was sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hence, the application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No cost. 2. After having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances and the ultimate conclusion reached at by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 9-11-2005 in CWJC. No. 3906 of 2001, as well as, the settled proposition of law, we are of the opinion that such a frivolous Letters Patent Appeal should not have been filed by the Union of India against the freedom fighter, who has been struggling for the rights arising out of the policy of the Central Government. 3. The only proposition, which is advanced is that the Union of India has already written to the State Government for the clarification as to whether the original petitioner - respondent No. 1 herein was in prison in connection with freedom fight during the period 1943-45 or not and since no reply or no clarification is received by the appellant-Union of India, the resultant effect is the rejection of the claim of the original petitioner-respondent No. 1 for the grant of Freedom Fighter Pension. It is in this context, the last paragraph of the impugned judgment, which is very vital, is re-produced with profit: "........In the event the Union of India requires any further clarification, it can have the same from the Government of Bihar and in such clarification, the Government of Bihar is directed to make it absolutely explicit that the petitioner was a freedom fighter and as such suffered imprisonment for the period mentioned above." 4. It appears that simply a doubt came to be raised whether the petitioner was freedom fighter during the aforesaid period or not and to that effect some clarification was required and sought by the appellant - the Union of India from the State Government. Now, when there is a direction to the State Government to give clarification, the State Government has to give clarification and accordingly the Union of India has to act. No any legal issue appears to be involved. Now, when there is a direction to the State Government to give clarification, the State Government has to give clarification and accordingly the Union of India has to act. No any legal issue appears to be involved. The issue is absolutely based on facts and in order to obliterate the doubt in mind of the Union of India a direction has been issued to the State Government to give such clarification on being approached by the Union of India. 5. A poor freedom fighter, who, suffered imprisonment for independence of this mother land during the period from 1943 to 45, which is not as such justified before us, only for some clarification on a technical ground is knocking the door of justice for the claim of his pensionary benefits as freedom fighter arising out of the Government of India s policy and is unnecessarily being harassed. This is nothing but a travesty of justice. 6. We are of the opinion that no such Letters Patent Appeal ought to have been filed by the Union of India. It is in this context, we are left with no alternative but to raise our hands in helplessness and to dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal with a cost, which is quantified at Rs. 2500/- to be paid to the other side, who has already appeared through the Advocate. The cost is to be paid before the Registrar General of this Court within a month from today, failing the Registry will bring the matter to our notice for further order and direction. 7. In the result, this application shall stand dismissed with the aforesaid cost.