Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 456 (PAT)

Md. Sattar v. State Of Bihar

2006-05-12

AFTAB ALAM

body2006
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 4 of 2003-04 instituted before the Certificate Officer, Paliganj for recovery of the amounts of pension (Rs. 1,68,786.00 ) and medical allowance (Rs. 16,301.60.00 ) fraudulently received by him under the Freedom Fighters Pension scheme. 2. Taking judicial notice of the rampant abuse of the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, a bench of this Court suo motu got instituted a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 10638 of 2001. In pursuance of the directions given in that case, inquiries were made and it came to light that a number of people were in fact fraudulently receiving pension and other facilities under the Scheme. Here, it may be noted that pension and other facilities under the Scheme are granted by the Central Government on the recommendation made by the State Level Advisory Committee that examines at the first instance the claims of individuals and verifies the documents submitted in support of the claim. In case of the present petitioner and a number of others, it was found that they were getting freedom fighters pension and other facilities even though there were no records concerning them at the state level. The State Government asked the Central Government for copies of the recommendations purportedly made by the State Level Advisory Committee in respect of the petitioner and some others. It then transpired that in the recommendation letter(s), reference was/were given of a meeting(s) of the State Level Advisory Committee in which the case of the petitioner and the others never came up for consideration. The recommendation letter(s) showed references nos. and other particulars that had no connection with the petitioner or the others claimants. In one word, the letter(s) of recommendation from the State Level Advisory Committee was/were fake and it was on that basis that the petitioner was able to obtain sanction for grant of freedom fighters pension. When these facts came to light, the Central Government issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and on a review of the entire matter, cancelled the grant of freedom fighters pension to him and to some other similarly situated claimants. As a consequence, the certificate proceeding was instituted for recovery of the amount received by the petitioner fraudulently. 3. When these facts came to light, the Central Government issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and on a review of the entire matter, cancelled the grant of freedom fighters pension to him and to some other similarly situated claimants. As a consequence, the certificate proceeding was instituted for recovery of the amount received by the petitioner fraudulently. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount for the recovery of which the certificate case was instituted was not covered by the definition of public demand, and hence, the issuance of the certificate and the institution of the proceedings were completely misconceived, unauthorised and without jurisdiction. 4. I am not impressed by the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. It should not be forgotten that the petitioner is before the Court in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The remedy before a Writ Court, unless it involved infringement of a fundamental right, can not be claimed as a matter of right. The high prerogative writ jurisdiction of the Court is meant to promote the cause of justice. It is not meant to thwart an action serving the interest of substantial justice. 5. The petitioner managed to obtain large sums of money from the public exchequer fraudulently though he was not entitled to it. If steps are being taken for recovery of the public money, I do not think it will be a proper exercise of the writ jurisdiction to come in the way and stop the proceedings. Therefore, I, feel completely disinclined to entertain the objection raised by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner still has a statutory remedy u/s. 9 of the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act and he may raise all his objections before the Certificate Officer in his reply to the notice issued u/s. 7 of the Act. It is needless to say that the Certificate Officer shall consider all the objections raised by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations.