Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 86 (PAT)

M. D. Sattar v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-11

J.N.BHATT, S.K.SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. By both these Letters Patent Appeal the challenge is made against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.5.2006 and 19.6.2006 in C.W.J.C. Nos. 8835 of 2004 and C.W.J.C. No. 8900 of 2004, respectively, whereby, the petitions came to be dismissed. 2. The appellants, are the original writ petitioners who sought quashing of the proceedings of Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2003-04 and Certificate Case No. 8 of 2003-04 instituted in the office of Certificate Officer, Paliganj for the recovery of the amount of pension amounting to Rs. 1,68,786/- and medical allowances of Rs. 16,301.60/- and Rs. 2,06,346.32 paise, respectively, fraudulently received by the petitioners under the freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. 3. The following aspects are unquestionable from the record: (1) That this Court in a suo motu petition being C.W.J.C. No. 10638 of 2001 in view of abuse and misuse of Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme had given directions pursuant to which inquiries were made and it came to light that so many person have fraudulently received pension and other facilities provided in the scheme concerned. (2) That the pension and other facilities under the Scheme are granted by the Central Government on the recommendation of the State Leval Advisory Committee that examines at the first instance the claims of individuals and verifies the documents submitted in support of the claim. (3) So far the petitioners cases are concerned and in cases of other persons, also, it came to light upon investigations and inquiries that they were getting freedom fighters pension and other facilities even though there were no records concerning them at the State Level. It was, also, noticed and detected that some of the letters purported to have been written by the State Level Advisory Committee were fake and forged. (4) Such facts were, also, brought to the notice of the Central Government upon which show cause notices came to be issued by the Central Government to the petitioners and on a review of the entire matter the Central Government cancelled the grant of freedom fighters pension to the petitioners and others who had committed frraud. (5) As a sequel to the on going proceedings, certificate proceedings came to be initiated for the recovery of the amount received by the petitioners fraudulently. Such siphoning Off public money by fraud was taken very seriously. (5) As a sequel to the on going proceedings, certificate proceedings came to be initiated for the recovery of the amount received by the petitioners fraudulently. Such siphoning Off public money by fraud was taken very seriously. (6) It was found by the authorities that the original writ petitioners managed to obtain much money from the public exchequer fraudulently though they were not eligible for it or entitled to it. 4. It is in these context, the proceedings are going on for recovery of the public fund from the petitioners. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned Single Judge reached to the view that it is not a fit case to entertain the writ petitions with further observation that the petitioners will have the statutory remedy under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, where they could object before the Certificate Officer in reply to the notices issued under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act. Obviously, when such objections are raised, the Certificate Officer is obliged to consider them and decide. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants original writ petitioners which is reiterated before us is that the recovery proceedings are not covered by the Act as the definition of the public demand incorporated in the Act does not cover the recovery of such amount for which the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners, original writ petitioners by the authority. 7. Needless to reiterate that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is plenary, extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Nobody can claim it as a matter of right unless some fundamental rights are violated. There is no question of violation of fundamental right. It is, also, the settled proposition of law that if granting of such equitable and discretionary relief by the writ Court leads to the perpetuation of a wrongful action or fraudulent withdrawal of public funds the Court may decline to entertain the petition under writ jurisdiction. The discretionary and equitable relief declined to the present appellants, original writ petitioners by the learned Single Judge could not be faulted. We are, therefore, of the view that the present Letters Patent Appeals are misconceived and deserve to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. Accordingly, both the Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed.