JUDGMENT 1. Writ petition by the widow of a former freedom fighter, who had been granted freedom fighter’s pension by the state government in terms of the order dated 30-7-1992. The petitioner’s husband Maharudrappa Thotagi was drawing the pension during his lifetime till his expiry on 7-10-1997. Thereafter, the government had continued the pension in the name of the petitioner as a dependent member of the freedom fighter in whose favour the freedom fighters’ pension had been granted. 2. It appears, the state government wanted to have a review of all freedom fighters’ pensions that had been granted at the request of any person who had claimed as a freedom fighters, particularly for the reason that there were complaints as to the genuineness of such claims; that many of the claimants had produced either false or fabricated documents or had not produced any commensurate material to prove that they were freedom fighters as recognized under the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme, 1969 by having undergone imprisonment for the requisite period while fighting for the freedom of the country. 3. It appears, the state government reopened all earlier cases of grant of pension under the scheme and had issued notices to all the pensioners directing them to produce material afresh to confirm that they were genuine freedom fighters etc. This being a general exercise, a notice had come to be issued in the name of the husband of the petitioner on 10-9-1999. The petitioner, it appears had represented that her husband was no more and therefore there was no way of responding to the notice etc. The respondent-authorities had followed up by issue of a notice dated 17-11-2000 in the name of the petitioner herself and called upon her to produce all original documents to support the claim that her husband was a freedom fighter. 4. It appears, the petitioner did appear before the under secretary to government on 4-12-2000 at Bangalore and had placed before him whatever material she had in her possession including the xerox copies of other original documents which her husband had placed before the government along with his application seeking for grant of pension. 5. 4. It appears, the petitioner did appear before the under secretary to government on 4-12-2000 at Bangalore and had placed before him whatever material she had in her possession including the xerox copies of other original documents which her husband had placed before the government along with his application seeking for grant of pension. 5. The respondents, purporting to examine the representation of the petitioner, have passed an order on 6-8-2002 [Annexure-B to the writ petition] holding that the petitioner having not produced any original documents to confirm that her husband had taken an active part in the freedom struggle, the government was required to cancel grant of freedom fighter’s pension in his name and therefore ordered for cancellation of pension to the petitioner also. It appears, the petitioner did not take immediate action against this cancellation, but had made a representation before the first respondent through the local member of legislative assembly and that having been replied by the government apprising the representative that the local committee – assistant commissioner and deputy commissioner – having enquired into the matter and having decided that pension is required to be cancelled for the reason that there is no material available to establish that the petitioner’s husband had participated in an active manner in the freedom struggle nor having placed material to show that he had suffered imprisonment for the qualified period under the scheme and that the petitioner herself having conceded before the government at the enquiry that she did not have any original documents to support the claim of her husband as a freedom fighter there is no way of the government of applying the ratio of the ruling of this court in the case of LAXMAVVA SATYAPPA DURGANNAVAR [WP No 33055 of 2004] and cancelled the pension in the name of the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the cancellation of pension, the present writ petition. 6. Notices had been issued to the respondents and though two years have elapsed thereafter, the respondents have not filed any statement of objections. Though Sri K B Adyapak, learned government pleader appearing for the respondents seeks some more time, there is no need to adjourn the matter further and therefore the matter is taken up for disposal. 7. 6. Notices had been issued to the respondents and though two years have elapsed thereafter, the respondents have not filed any statement of objections. Though Sri K B Adyapak, learned government pleader appearing for the respondents seeks some more time, there is no need to adjourn the matter further and therefore the matter is taken up for disposal. 7. Submission of Sri H M Dharihond, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had herself submitted before the enquiry committee and the government that all original documents in support of the claim for freedom fighter’s pension by her husband had been surrendered to the government when he had made the claim and he had only retained the xerox copies thereof and such copies had been produced before the authorities and that the petitioner did not have any other material and cancelling the pension in favour of the petitioner on the premise that she had not proved that her husband was a freedom fighter is not justified and not tenable in law and also not in consonance with the scheme. 8. Sri K B Adyapak, learned government pleader, on the other hand, submits that the government had power to reexamine the case in terms of the Rule 7 of the Karnataka State Freedom Fighter’s Pension Rules, 1965 [for short, the Rules]. 9. While there may be a provision under the scheme for review of the order granting freedom fighter’s pension, even that provision should be invoked and applied in proper manner and for the proper purpose. 10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s husband, in whose favour freedom fighters’ pension had been granted under the scheme, died on 7-10-1997 and pension payable to a dependent member of a freedom fighter who had been granted pension had been granted to the petitioner and had been continued to be given to her. The authorities though no doubt issued a notice in the name of a dead person in the year 1999 and the authorities having been apprised of the death of husband of the petitioner, have issued a fresh notice in the name of the petitioner, expecting an elderly lady like the petitioner to prove afresh that her husband had undergone imprisonment and actually participated in the freedom struggle by producing original documents in the year 2000, is almost next to impossible and highly impracal also. A perusal of the impugned order gives an impression that it is more an order passed in common rather than on the merits of each case. 11. Apart from any other thing, the government cannot expect a dependent member – an elderly and widowed lady of a freedom fighter – to prove that her husband was a genuine freedom fighter and grant of freedom fighter in the scheme was justified. Such an irrational and mindless action on the part of the respondents only demonstrates how things are done mechanically in the government and not on the merits of each case. 12. While there may be instances of some person having misused the benefit under the scheme, even by producing forged or concocted documents, and such instances if established can be appropriately dealt with and freedom fighters’ pension definitely cancelled, a generalization cannot be made in respect of all freedom fighters that they have indulged in such fraud and deceit. It is a matter of disgrace that the state government has been functioning in this manner. It is not any honour done to any freedom fighter but only on insult heaped on freedom fighters. If the state government’s mindless action is permitted to remain, the life of persons like the petitioner would be made miserable, which is rather a sorry state of affairs. 13. The impugned order at Annexure-D is to be quashed for more than one reason, as noted above, not only for non-application of mind but also for the reason that the pension granted in the name of the petitioner’s husband as freedom fighter is sought to be cancelled after his death and on the premise that his widow did not establish that her husband was freedom fighter. 14. In the result this writ petition is allowed and Annexure-D is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari, with cost of Rs 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable by the respondents to the petitioner. The respondents are directed not only to continue the pension in favour of the petitioner but also to pay the arrears from the year 2002 onwards. The arrears of pension and the cost shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. Rule issued and made absolute. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.