Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 28 (MP)

HARPRASAD MISHRA v. STATE OF M P

2007-01-10

A.K.PATNAIK, R.S.JHA

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal against order dated 9-10-2006 passed by learned Single judge in W. P. No. 14203/2006. ( 2. ) THE facts briefly are that the appellant claiming himself to be a freedom fighter made an application to the respondents for adding his name in the list of freedom fighters and for payment of "samman Nidhi" under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi niyam, 1972. By the order dated 23-6-1998, the State Government rejected the application holding that there was no document available to establish that he was a freedom fighter and, therefore, he was not entitled for "samman Nidhi". Thereafter the appellant filed W. P. No. 14203/2006 for a direction to the respondents to decide the case of the appellant and add his name in the list of freedom fighters list, the writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order summarily on the ground that the appellant filed the writ petition after lapse of 8 years of the rejection of his application by order dated 23-6-1998 of the State government. ( 3. ) IN our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the real grievance of the appellant is non-inclusion of this name in the list of freedom fighters for payment of "samman Nidhi" and so long as his name is not included in the list of freedom fighters for payment of "samman nidhi" he suffers a continuous wrong and his cause of action continued. It is true that by order dated 23-6-1998 the State Government has rejected the application of the appellant for such inclusion of his name on the list of freedom fighters but such rejection is only on the ground that no document was available to establish his case. Subsequently, it appears that the appellant filed a fresh application alongwith document and the Collector has called for some information alongwith affidavit vide letter dated 24-2-2004. ( 4. ) IN Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others ( AIR 1984 SC 971 ), the Supreme Court has held that whether relief should be granted to a petitioner under Article 226 where the cause of action had arisen in the remote past is a matter of sound judicial discretion governed by the doctrine of laches, but this rule cannot be a rigid formula. Union of India and others ( AIR 1984 SC 971 ), the Supreme Court has held that whether relief should be granted to a petitioner under Article 226 where the cause of action had arisen in the remote past is a matter of sound judicial discretion governed by the doctrine of laches, but this rule cannot be a rigid formula. The Supreme Court has further held that there may be cases where even a delay of a shorter period may be considered to be sufficient to refuse relief in a petition under Article 226 and there may also be cases where there may be circumstances which may persuade the Court to grant relief even though the petition may have been filed belatedly. The Supreme Court has further held that each case has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances touching the conduct of the parties, the change in situation, the prejudice which is likely to be caused to the opposite party or to the general public. ( 5. ) IN the present case, the petitioner claims to be freedom fighter and his grievance is that his name has not been included in the list of freedom fighters for payment of grant of Samman Nidhi. Even if his claim has been rejected earlier by order dated 23-6-1998 on the ground that no document was available to establish that he was a freedom fighter, the appellant could still establish his claim by producing relevant documents before the Competent Authority. By delay of about 8 years for filing the writ petition, no prejudice was likely to be caused to the State Government or the general public. On the other hand, if the case of the appellant in the writ petition was not considered under Article 226 of the Constitution, the appellant would suffer immense prejudice and hardship. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, therefore, the learned Single judge ought to have entertained the writ petition and decided the same on merit instead of dismissing the same on the ground of laches. ( 6. ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 9-10-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 14203/21006 and remit the writ petition back to the file of learned Single Judge for fresh decision in accordance with law.