JUDGMENT : NITIN JAMDAR, C.J. The Appellants before us were members of the Zamorin family, who were rulers of the Kozhikode region in the State of Kerala. An agreement (Karar Namah) dated 15 November 1806 was executed between the East India Company and Korikorte Mauna Wickama Samoory Rajah of Nedyeruppu Suruwum in respect of Malikhana, a sum promised by the East India Company. The Appellants contend that the sum received under 1806 Agreement is not a pension but compensation for handing over the properties and is not fixed and liable for revision. The learned Single Judge has negated this contention. Hence, this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 2. The relationship between the East India Company, the Zamorins, the Dutch, the Portuguese and the rulers of Mysore evolved over a long period of time. It involved alliances, conflicts, and strategic agreements driven by the Company’s commercial interests and Mysore Rulers’ territorial expansions. An agreement dated 15 November 1806, Exhibit P1, was executed between the East India Company and the Korikorte Mauna Wickama Samoory Rajah of Nedyeruppu Suruwum, commonly referred to as the Zamorin Raja. The 1806 Agreement needs to be reproduced to place the matter in perspective. It is as under: “Kararnamah or Agreement entered into between the Honourable Company’s Government and Korikorte Mauna Wickama Samoory Rajah of Nedyeruppu Suruwum for himself and his family, defining the conditions on which the Malikhana they have heretofore enjoyed is confirmed to them in perpetuity Whereas karamamahs or agreements were signed and executed between James Stevens, Esq., Supravisor of the Province of Malabar under the authority vested in him by the Honourable the Governor in Council of Bombay on the one part, and by certain Malabar Rajahs and Chieftains on the other part. Wherein it was among- other stipulations agreed, that for the term of five years commencing on the 1st of Kanny 970 M .S., one-fifth share of the net collections of certain districts should be on certain conditions paid annually for the said period of five years to Korikato Mauna Wickram Samoory Rajah, out of the revenues accruing to the Company’s Government. And whereas the said term of five years so stipulated is now and has been long since expired and the conditions of the said kararnamahs or agreements consequently void and of no effect and no permanent settlement of the revenues of Malabar having since been carried into practice, the Malikhana to the several Rajahs has been continued by the free bounty of the Company’s Government on the basis of the aforesaid kararnamahs or agreements. And whereas the jurisdiction of the Province of Malabar having been transferred to the Government of Fort St. George, the Principal Collector has received the orders of the Right Honourable the Governor in Council to fix one general assessment of land revenue throughout the Province of Malabar on certain principles. And whereas the proposed assessment may in its operation reduce the amount of jumma up on certain districts in particular, or upon the whole province in general. Whereby the usual Malikhana of five per cent, on the jumma may be diminished in certain cases to the prejudice of the comforts of the Rajahs and their families, contrary to the benevolent intentions of the Company’s Government towards the Rajahs of Malabar. And for as much as some of the younger branches of certain Kowilgums have at several times forgotten their duties of allegiance to' the Company’s Government, and have in some instances fomented and excited disturbances in the country, and some are at this moment in actual hostility and rebellion against the Government, and it is expedient to use every precaution to avert such evils in all time to come. But whereas the Company’s Government are in its justice disposed to pardon the former errors of the few (the crimes of open hostility and 'rebellion excepted) in consideration of the allegiance and commendable demeanour of the majority of the members of the different Kowilgums in Malabar. Wherefore the Right Honourable the Governor in Council of Fort St. George has deemed it expedient to authorize and direct the Principal Collector in Malabar to frame and conclude new stipulations and agreements of one general form and tenor of the most solemn and binding nature to comprehend and provide for all and singular of the premises. In pursuance therefore of the said determination of the Government in virtue of powers specially vested in me to this end by authority of the Right Honourable the Governor in Council of Fort St. In pursuance therefore of the said determination of the Government in virtue of powers specially vested in me to this end by authority of the Right Honourable the Governor in Council of Fort St. George. I, Thomas Warden, Principal Collector in the Province of Malabar, do hereby stipulate and agree in the name of the Honourable United East India Company with Korikote Mauna Wickram Rajah of the Nodiyeruppa Suruwum for himself and his heirs for ever in manner and form following:— Article I.— Clause 1st.— From and after the 1st day of Kanny 982 M.S. or 15 th September 1806 the Malikhana or allowance to the several Rajeums, Kovilghums, and Chieftains in Malabar shall be calculated at 20 per cent, upon the Gross Jumma of the Land Revenue of the year 976 (after deducting 10 per cent, for charges) being the Jumma to which the amount of the assessment was reduced by a Proclamation under the signature of the Acting Principal Collector bearing date the 11th March 1803, corresponding with the 30th of Koombhum 978 (M.S.). And in order to obviate all future doubts as to the true meaning and extent of this clause, the names of the districts, total amount of nett Jumma and Malikhana thereon payable to Korikote Mauna Wickram Rajah and the Nediyeruppa Suruwum are hereunder specified. Calicut, Pynaad, Ernaad, Kekapuram, Naduganaad, Shernaad, Wadakapuram, Chowghaut, Naduvootum :— Viray Hoons. Fns. Cash Total nett Jumma after deducting 10 per cent. .. .. .. 2,33,785 6 36JAmount of Malikana being 20 per <;ent. on nett Jumma is 46,257 1 15 Making at 12j Yiray Fanams per Star Pagoda, Star Pagodas .. 37,760 39 0 or R u pees.. .. .. .. 1,32,163 4 0 Clause 2nd.— All existing agreements made under the sanction of the different Administrations of the Province of Malabar relative to the distribution of the one-fifth share or Malikhana among the Rajahs, Members, and others of the several Rajeums are hereby recognized and confirmed; and the several shares shall be recoverable by process in the Civil Courts of Judicature existing or which may be established in the Province of Malabar. Clause 3rd.— In like manner it shall be competent to the several Rajahs, under sanction of the Company’s Civil officers having due authority to form separate stipulations with the members and families of the Rajeums, for the division of the shares, which shall, in this case, be recoverable in the Courts of Law as specified in clause the second of this Article Article II.— The amount of the Malikhana as fixed by this instrument shall be payable in quarterly equal instalments at the Cutcherry of the Principal Collector, or of the Collector of the Zillah as the case may be. Article III - To ensure a due degree of subordination among the Junior members of the different Kowilgums and of the latter upon the principal one, the instalments of Malikhana shall be payable only to the receipt of the Senior Member of each Rajeum, unless it shall be otherwise determined by competent authority of the Company’s Civil officers. Article IV .— The Malikhana as hereby fixed shall be considered as the security for the good and dutiful behavior towards the Company’s Government of each and every member of the Rajeum or family to which it may now and hereafter be payable Clause 1st.— That is to say, if any Senior Rajah having the solo management of the Malikhana of his family shall at any time receive a summons from any Collector or Judge or other competent authority requiring the personal appearance of any subordinate member of his family to answer to any matter or thing which may be cognisable by the Criminal Courts in Malabar; which matter or thing is to be distinctly specified in the summons, and if within a certain period, which shall be also specified in the summons, the said Senior Rajah shall not have delivered up the person of the said member of his family, or have given satisfactory proof of his inability to produce the said person, then the whole of the Malikhana, which would be payable to that Rajeum in all its branches, shall be forfeited to Government for ever. Provided that any Junior member or family of such Rajeum may, upon establishing to the satisfaction of the local authority of Government his individual innocence of all concern in the matters charged against his relative and his inability to co-operate successfully in securing his person, make application through such local authority to Government for the special indulgence of a continuance of his or her share. Clause 2nd.— In like manner when the shares have been regularly distributed among the different Rajahstaanums and Kovilgums by due authority as specified in clauses second and third of Article I, then such summons as aforesaid shall issue to the Senior Rajah of the particular Kolghum of which the person of any member may be required ; in this case the share allotted to such Kolghum, and whatever else the members thereof may otherwise independently receive of the Malikhana, shall be in the first instance sequestered in the event of an unsatisfactory return to such summons. Clause 3rd.— But. in the event of the summons requiring the person of the Senior or managing Rajah of any Kovilgum, then it shall be directed to tho Senior Member of the Suruwum or Rajeum, and the whole Malikhana thereof shall be the security as in clause first of this article. Article V .— Counterparts of this instrument are signed and interchanged between Thomas Warden, Principal Collector of Malabar, on the part of Government, and Korikoto Mauna Wickram Rajah of the Nediyruppa Suruwum for himself, and the members of his family, the Seniors of whom likewise sign the separate copy conjointly and separately for themselves and the members of their respective Kovilagums, it being contrary to the custom of the Suruwum for its Junior Members to put their signatures in the same paper with the Zamorin or Senior Rajah. Signed, and sealed, and delivered on this 15th day of the month of November in the year 1806 corresponding with the 2nd day of the month of Vrischigam of the Malabar year 982 at Calicut in the public Cutcherry of the Principal Collector, where no stamps are used, in the presence of S. Meek, Civil Surgeon, Thos. Warden , Malabar. Principal Collector in Malabar. Wm. Atkins, Lt.-Col., Ignacio de Loyalae G a . Signature of Zamorin. In a separate copy are the signatures of Eralpad or Second Rajah. of Edataralpad or Fourth Rajah. Warden , Malabar. Principal Collector in Malabar. Wm. Atkins, Lt.-Col., Ignacio de Loyalae G a . Signature of Zamorin. In a separate copy are the signatures of Eralpad or Second Rajah. of Edataralpad or Fourth Rajah. of the Nediripa Moota Erady Tirulmalpad or Fifth Rajah for himself and his elder brother, the Moonalpad , Senior of Kerekoy Kulote Kolgum of the Elea Erady Tirulmalpad , Senior of the Poodea Kuloto Rajah. Note.—From the original in the Records. A copy was sent to Government with letter, dated 18th December 1847. “On the assumption of the District by the British, the Rajahs and other chieftains of Malabar were considered entitled by specific agreements to one-fifth of the net revenue of their respective districts. These varying allowances were permanently fixed at 20 per cent, of the net revenue of the year 1800-1.” Extract from the Proceedings of the Revenue Board, dated 11th June 1857, No. 1970. The assertion that all the Rajahs and chieftains were originally considered to be entitled to one-fifth of the net revenues is incorrect. The Zamorin’s family had allotted to them 20 per cent, of the net land revenue plus 10 per cent, of the customs gross collections plus 50 per cent, of the profits of the Calicut Mint. Similar rates (except as to the Mint profits) were granted to the Rajahs of Chirakkal, Kottayam, Kadattanad, Kurumbranad, Beypore, Parappnnad and Palghat, while only 10 per cent, of tho net collections was granted to the Vellatri Raja, the Iruvalanad Nambiyars and the Payyormala and Pulavayi Nayars—Joint Commissioner’s Report of 11th October 1793, para. 463. Except this engagement with the Zamorin family “no specific agreements were exchanged with any other Malikhana recipients; although Government evidently contemplated the adoption of the similar course towards all the Rajahs and Chiefs” (Vide No. CCLII). “It should be understood that these allowances will be subject to revocation upon proof established of flagrant misbehaviour or rebellious conduct.” -Lord W. Bentinck’s Minute with Revenue Board’s letter to Principal Collector, 5th May 1804. In 1857 the Government agreed with the Revenue Board and the Acting Collector of Malabar “that the allowances are perpetual during good conduct and are not revocable at pleasure.” Extract from Minutes of Consultation, dated 30 th May 1857. In 1857 the Government agreed with the Revenue Board and the Acting Collector of Malabar “that the allowances are perpetual during good conduct and are not revocable at pleasure.” Extract from Minutes of Consultation, dated 30 th May 1857. Since 1805 the stipends of two petty chiefs, viz,, Kollangod Nambidi and Kuttiravatt Nayar, having been paid direct to them from the Malikhana of the Zamorin, who had “acquiesced to this arrangement for more than half a century,” the Revenue Board stated that it could not “ accede to his (present) wish that the money should be paid through him in future.” — Vide their Proceedings, dated 22nd September 1857, No. 3138.” 3. The 1806 Agreement concerned the Zamorin family's financial arrangements, specifically the payment of Malikhana’, an amount received from the East India Company intended for distribution among the family. The Agreement acknowledged that the conditions for receiving Malikhana had been previously established, but certain changes were necessary. One stipulation of past Agreements, which was effective for five years, that a share of the net revenue collected from the district by the Company's Government be paid annually to the Zamorin Raja. The 1806 Agreement clarified that the previous conditions were no longer in effect since this five-year period had lapsed. Despite this, the payment of Malikhanato various Rajas continued as a discretionary act of the Company's Government. It was observed that some younger branches of the 'Kovilakoms' had neglected their duties of allegiance to the Company's law, resulting in hostility and rebellion. Consequently, it was necessary to formulate a new set of stipulations and agreements in a unified document binding on all parties involved. As a result, the 1802 Agreement was executed. 4. The Agreement of 1806 comprised five articles. Article I of the agreement provides for Malikhanato several Rajeums, Kovilghums, and Chieftains in Malabar, calculated at the rate of 20 per cent upon the gross Jumma of the Land Revenue, with details regarding the payments. Article II provided that the amount of Malikhanaas fixed is payable in quarterly equal instalments by the Principal Collector. Article III stated that, to ensure a due degree of subordination among junior members of different 'Kovilakoms' (Palaces), the sum will be paid only to the senior member in instalments. Malikhana shall be considered a security for good and dutiful behaviour. Clause 5 refers to the signing of the agreements. Article III stated that, to ensure a due degree of subordination among junior members of different 'Kovilakoms' (Palaces), the sum will be paid only to the senior member in instalments. Malikhana shall be considered a security for good and dutiful behaviour. Clause 5 refers to the signing of the agreements. It can be seen that the 1806 agreement between the East India Company and the Zamorin formalised the conditions under which the Malikhana (allowance) would be provided to the Raja and his family in perpetuity. Initially, the family was entitled to a share of the net revenue collected from certain districts, which was later fixed at 20% of the net land revenue from 1800-01, plus additional shares from customs duties and profits of the Calicut Mint. The agreement stipulated that the allowance would serve as a guarantee of the family’s good behaviour towards the British government. If any member of the family acted against the government’s interests, such as engaging in rebellion, the allowance could be revoked. The senior members were to receive the allowance on behalf of junior members. The agreement allowed for the division of shares among family members, enforceable through civil courts. Over time, some payments were adjusted, and direct allowances were given to smaller chiefs from the Zamorin's allocation. The agreement emphasised that the allowances were perpetual, provided the recipients maintained good conduct and were not subject to arbitrary revocation by the government. This agreement governed the parties for a considerable period of time. 5. After the East India Company, the properties were passed on to the dominion of the British Government and, after independence, to the Government of India. The Government of India carried out a review of the payment of political pensions after the commencement of the Constitution of India, and orders were issued by circular dated 1 April 1952. 6. On 25 November 2002, Appellant No.2, P.K. Kerala Varma, made a representation to the Government of India for a revision of the payment of Malikhana, stating that there had been no review of Malikhanasince 1806. The gist of the representation is as follows: The Zamorin Raja of Calicut and all other family members are entitled to receive Malikhana payments in equal shares. Malikhana refers to compensation for the family’s properties that were surrendered to the East India Company through a formal agreement (Karar) dated 15 November 1806. The gist of the representation is as follows: The Zamorin Raja of Calicut and all other family members are entitled to receive Malikhana payments in equal shares. Malikhana refers to compensation for the family’s properties that were surrendered to the East India Company through a formal agreement (Karar) dated 15 November 1806. Under this agreement, the family provided security for good conduct and support to the Company’s trading activities, including assistance with local employment. The payment amount was fixed at Rs. 1,32,168.25 in 1806, based on the value of the rupee against the sovereign at that time, the cost of living in 1806, and the market value of the facilities provided. This agreement specified that Malikhana payments would continue in perpetuity without termination. When the British Crown took control of the East India Company’s operations, the Malikhana payments continued. After India gained independence in 1947, the Government of India assumed the obligation to continue these payments. Even when the Privy Purse for former rulers was abolished, the Malikhana payments remained intact due to the binding nature of the earlier agreements. Since 1806, the amount of Malikhanahas not been reviewed. The Appellant requested that the Malikhana payment be revised to Rs. 6,000 per month for all members of the Zamorin family, distributed equally. 7. On 20 December 2000, the Kerala State Accountant General requested approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs to revise the payment, but no response was received. 8. Since there was no response to the Petitioner’s representations and reminders, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.23177/2003 for a direction to re-fix the Malikhana. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 4 April 2008, directing that the representation of the Petitioner, which was pending, be decided within three months and an opportunity of hearing be provided to the Petitioner. 9. The Land Revenue Commissioner wrote to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, recommending an increase in the Malikhana payment. In his communication (Exhibit P6/2), the Commissioner reported that several Central and State Government establishments are now located on lands in Kozhikode City that were originally owned by the Zamorin Raja and his family. Other government establishments, including the Income Tax Office, Central Excise Office, and the State Bank of India, are also situated on land formerly owned by the Zamorin family. Other government establishments, including the Income Tax Office, Central Excise Office, and the State Bank of India, are also situated on land formerly owned by the Zamorin family. Since the Malikhana-payment was set in 1806 based on the property values at that time, the current value of these lands is now significantly higher. 10. The Respondent Union of India rejected the Petitioner's representation by order dated 6 January 2015. The Appellants also received a response on 25 May 2012 stating that they are not entitled to the revision of the Malikhana. 11. Challenging the rejection of their representation, the appellants filed a writ petition, No.11339/2015, challenging the rejection of revision and seeking a mandamus to increase the payment of Malikhanato the members of the Zamorin family. 12. It was the contention of the Appellants in the petition that the payment of Malikhana was not in the nature of a privy purse or pension given to the former rulers but as a legal right of compensation for permitting the use of its private properties to the East India Company. They contended that since it is not a privy purse or a pension, the Pension Act 1871, invoked by the Respondent Union of India, does not apply. The Appellants also contended that the order rejecting the revision is a non-speaking one without any reasons, and no policy decision was ever informed to the Appellants. The Appellants have also contended that the principle of promissory estoppel would apply. 13. The Government of India, through the Under Secretary, filed a counter in this petition. The Respondent Union of India on the other hand had contended that the review of such pension was taken by the Union of India, including the grant of Malabar Malikhana, and it has been considered as a political pension inherited from British Rulers which has been honoured and continued; however, it is not liable to be changed. 14. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition by judgment dated 26 October 2023 against which the present appeal is filed. 15. We have heard Sri. K. Ramkumar, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants and Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel for the Respondents. The Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Kerala is directed to be joined as party Respondent, and Mr. V. Tekchand, Senior Government Pleader accepts notice on his behalf. 16. 15. We have heard Sri. K. Ramkumar, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants and Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel for the Respondents. The Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Kerala is directed to be joined as party Respondent, and Mr. V. Tekchand, Senior Government Pleader accepts notice on his behalf. 16. The case of the Appellants is firstly based on the nature of the agreement of the year 1802 and the characteristics of the Malabar Malikhanaand seeks revision on the grounds of the hardship framed by the Zamorin family and the sacrifices that have been made. The Appellants contended as follows: TheMalikhana is compensation for the surrender of property and does not fall under the definition of a grant or pension under the Pensions Act. Furthermore, the Malikhana was fixed based on a share of the revenue collected from specific districts, reflecting the authority exercised by the royal family, and therefore cannot be classified as a pension. The District Collector, acting under the State Government, is the competent authority to grant Malikhana, and the State Government has already recommended a revision of the amount. The Government of India and the sanctioning authority have a duty to revise the amount periodically invoking the principle of promissory estoppel. The appellants have a legitimate expectation that the payment would be adjusted over time to reflect changing circumstances. Additionally, under Articles 294 and 295 of the Constitution of India, the Government of India is bound to fulfil all obligations arising from the 1806 Agreement. The failure to revise the Malikhana payment violates the appellants' fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India. The Zamorin family, who has surrendered valuable land in and around Kozhikode—now worth several crores—are living in poverty and the State and Central Governments should sympathise with their plight. The representation has been rejected without proper reasoning. The reasons given are not borne out by the 1952 guidelines. The Appellants contended that the amount of Malikhanabe revised and/or the representation be directed to be reconsidered. 17. According to the Respondents, 1806 Agreement was nothing but a bounty, which was an act of charity and a means of securing allegiance. The representation has been rejected without proper reasoning. The reasons given are not borne out by the 1952 guidelines. The Appellants contended that the amount of Malikhanabe revised and/or the representation be directed to be reconsidered. 17. According to the Respondents, 1806 Agreement was nothing but a bounty, which was an act of charity and a means of securing allegiance. The Respondents have contended that merely the properties once owned by the Zamorin were relinquished to the East India Company in 1806 have become highly valuable; this alone does not justify issuing a writ of mandamus unless the appellants establish a legal title, policy, or statutory right. It is submitted that a decision was already taken in 1952 after considering all pensions, and this decision is communicated to the Appellants, and there is no error in the same. 18. The rival contentions revolve around the nature of the Malikhana-payment and the intent of the original agreement. However, we find that the stand taken by the Respondents that the issue was already considered in detail in 1952 and no representation can be considered is not borne out by the record, In fact, as we have explained later, from the record placed before us the Under Secretary while responding to the representation has misquoted and rewritten the original decision which does not contemplate an outright final rejection. 19. Therefore, the question that would arise is what is the nature of Malikhana. According to the Respondents, Malikhanais a pension as defined under the Pension Act 1871. The Act of 1871 does not define pension, but it contemplates the grant of money on land revenue regarding any right, privilege, prerequisite or office. 20. The rejection of the Petitioner’s application dated 6 January 2015 does not give any reasons at all and only annexed a copy of the letter dated 25 May 2012. The letter of 25 May 2012 states that a decision is already been taken in respect of Malabar Malikhana on 1 April 1952, and as per its guidelines, the Petitioner's representation cannot be accepted. This communication addressed to the Petitioner dated 25 May 2012 by Wren Mishra, Under Secretary, Judicial and PP, Ministry of Home Affairs, needs to be reproduced in its entirety, as we find certain disturbing state of affairs. The communication dated 25 May 2012 reads thus: F.no.19/01/2003-Judl. This communication addressed to the Petitioner dated 25 May 2012 by Wren Mishra, Under Secretary, Judicial and PP, Ministry of Home Affairs, needs to be reproduced in its entirety, as we find certain disturbing state of affairs. The communication dated 25 May 2012 reads thus: F.no.19/01/2003-Judl. & PP (Pol.III) Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs 4th Floor, NDCC-II (Opposite Jantar Mantar), Jai Singh Road, New Delhi -01 Dated the May 25, 2012 To, 1. Shri P.K. Kerala Varma, S/o. Balrama Varma, Flat no.F.1 – Block no. 10, Chinthavalap Flats, Ram Mohan Road, Calicut – 673004, Kozhikode, Kerala. Subject: Representation for enhancement of Malikhana Payment for surrendering private properties on long lease agreement to East India Company and later took over by British Government – disposal of representation dated 25.11.2002 regarding. Sir, I am directed to refer to your representation dated 25.11.2002 (as referred to as Ext.P3 in the judgment dated 04.04.2008 given by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP(C)no.23177/2003 as mentioned in your representation dated 28.01.2012) regarding enhancement of Malikhana Payment and to say that your representation has been considered carefully in this Ministry but the same could not be acceded to in view of the following: 1. The entire matter pertaining to the Political Pensions was reviewed by the Government of India, after Independence, with reference to the provisions of the Pensions Act, 1871 and the circumstances under which sanctions were accorded. 2. The decisions of the Govt. of India were conveyed to the State Governments vide this office circular letter No.F.21(8)-PPR/51 dated the 1.4.1952. The decision in respect of Malikhana Allowance in this order reads as under: Malabar Malikhana Allowance (Rs.2,94,000/- per annum approximately (i) These represent allowances fixed about the year 1800 as compensation for the territories of the Malabar Rajas and chieftains taken over by the East India Company for direct management of the revenue administration, and (ii) In a small number of cases, compassionate grants sanctioned to the families of certain chiefs, who were dispossessed of their territories as a punitive measure for rebellion or disloyalty The Malikhanas which have all along been treated as compensation for territorial rights should be continued on the existing terms and conditions. The compassionate grants may be terminated after the lifetime of present holders. 3. The compassionate grants may be terminated after the lifetime of present holders. 3. The policy guidelines do not provide for enhancement of the Pensions, but stipulate that these pensions shall discontinue after the life time of the pension recipients at that time (i.e. in 1952) 4.1 The payment of political pensions was also considered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of late Ravi Varma Krishna Raja. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka had considered the background and circumstances which lead to the grant of Political Pension to late Ravi Varma Krishna Raja from the then British Rulers in India as well as the further developments that took place in the policy for payment of said pensions, after India became Independent with reference to the claim of the petitioners (Kshatriya Kshema Sabha & ors) for continuance of political descendant pension as a successor to the late Ravi Varma Krishna Raja. The Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 11.01.1999 dismissed the petitioner’s claim in W.P.No.11981 of 1992 and W.A.No.2243 of 1999, after due consideration of the circumstances, rule position, policy of the Government of India in this regard and the Ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Reghunathrao Ganpathrao Vs. Union of India/1994/Supp (1) SCC P-191. 4.2 In pursuance of petitioner’s Writ Appeal against aforesaid order of the Single Judge of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, the Division Bench also upheld the decision of the Single Judge Bench 5. In view of the preceding paras, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the revision of Malikhana Pension at all. The representation dated 25.11.2002 is accordingly rejected. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Wren Mishra) Under Secretary (Judicial & PP)” (emphasis supplied) From this communication, it is clear that Wren Mishra, the Under Secretary, conveyed that the issue has already been concluded by the decision of the Government of India on 1 April 1952, which applies to all State Governments and informed. The Under Secretary reproduced the decision regarding Malikhana allowances in the communication dated 1 April 1952, which we have reproduced above. 21. The decision of 1 April 1952 referred to and has been reproduced by the Respondents in the Counter affidavit sworn by Laltlana Chhangte in paragraphs 10 to 12, which is as under: 10. The Under Secretary reproduced the decision regarding Malikhana allowances in the communication dated 1 April 1952, which we have reproduced above. 21. The decision of 1 April 1952 referred to and has been reproduced by the Respondents in the Counter affidavit sworn by Laltlana Chhangte in paragraphs 10 to 12, which is as under: 10. In its review, the Government of India was guided by the guidelines included in the circular issued by the then Ministry of States, F.No.21(8)-PPR/51 dated 1/4/1952. The guidelines are: i) With regard to the life grants, each case should be examined on its merits and grants should be continued only to those who have got no other means of subsistence. ii) Grants made in compensation for surrender of territory should continue on the existing basis. iii) Grants in perpetuity should be reviewed with reference to the purpose for which they were made. Ordinarily, no grant should be continued beyond the life time of the present grantees. In exceptional cases, the period within which the grants may be extinguished may be extended but, in no case should it exceed two or three generations. iv) Grants for charitable or public purposes may be reviewed with a view to ascertaining whether it is at all necessary to continue the grants and whether the funds are utilized for the purpose for which they were sanctioned. 11. .. 12. The Government of India in its review considered the circumstances which resulted in the grant of Malabar Malikhana Allowance by the then Rulers as under: Malabar Malikhana Allowance (Rs.2,94,000 Approximately) These represent allegiances: (i) Fixed about the year 1800 as compensation for the territories of Malabar Rajas and the chieftains taken over by the East India Company for direct management of the revenue administration and (i) In a small number of cases, compassionate grants sanctioned to the families of certain chiefs, who were dispossessed of their territories as a punitive measure, for rebellion or disloyalty The Malikhanas which have all along been treated as compensation for territorial ights should be continued on the existing terms and conditions. The compassionate grants may be terminated after the life time of present holders. The compassionate grants may be terminated after the life time of present holders. (emphasis supplied) Therefore, the counter affidavit quoting the 1952 decision regarding Malikhana has been taken from the communication dated 25 May 2012 and not from the 1952 decision even though it is annexed, which shows a complete non-application of mind, if not malafides. 22. Turning now to the Guidelines dated 1 April 1952, which, according to the Under Secretary and the Deponent of the counter, has concluded the issue regarding the Malabar Malikhana allowances. This communication is issued by the Government of India to the Chief Secretary of the concerned States. The Government of India had undertaken a review of the political pension inherited from previous regions. According to the Government of India, general considerations were necessary. These general considerations were in reference to life grants, grants made in compensation of surrender, grants for charitable public purposes etc. A review was also sought to be taken in respect of pensions granted to descendants and dependents of former ruling families in India. Thereafter, each of the grants was considered, such as Carnatic Stipends, Tanjore Pensions, Bhonsla family pensions, etc. and under the column pension granted to Petty Rajas and Chiefs in compensation for the surrender of territorial rights, Malabar Malikhana allowance was analysed. The analysis with respect of the Malabar Malikhana allowance, which is a part of 1952 communication, is as under: B. PENSIONS GRANTED TO PETTY RAJAS AND CHIEFS IN COMPENSATION FOR THE SURRENDER OF TERRITORIAL RIGHTS. Malabar Malikhanas allowances (Rs.2,94,000 approximately) These represent allowances- (i) fixed about the year 1800 when the territories of the Malabar Rajas and Chieftains were taken over by the East India Company for direct management of the revenue administration, and (ii) in a small number of cases, compassionate grants sanctioned to the families of certain Chiefs, who were dispossessed of their territories as a punitive measure, for rebellion or disloyalty Prima facie the Malikhanas, which were conferred by the British on Chieftains who had been formerly dispossessed of their territories by the Muslim Rulers, cannot be regarded as compensation for territorial rights. The grants are therefore, liable to be terminated after the life-time of the present holders. The grants are therefore, liable to be terminated after the life-time of the present holders. Before taking a final decision in the matter, the Government of India will be glad if necessary particulars (including copies of relevant papers on the subject) could be forwarded to the Government of India with the comments of the State Government. (emphasis supplied) This is totally different than the clause quoted in the impugned order and the counter. 23. The letter of rejection dated 25 May 2012 is not the original decision of Wren Mishra, the Under Secretary, but it is based on the guidelines of 1952 and purporting the original decision as regards Malabar Malikhana. The Under Secretary has changed the language of the original quote. The deponent of the counter affidavit Laltlana Chhangte, Under Secretary, while referring to the 1952 communication in respect of the table regarding Malabar Malikhana allowance, has copied from a table reproduced the communication dated 25 May 2012 rather than examining the original guidelines of 1 April 1952, when they are annexed to the Counter. It is entirely improper and distressing that while relying upon and reproducing the earlier government decision the officers have changed the language and purport. We could have proceeded to issue a notice to these Under Secretaries for a serious action; however, in view of the contentions of the learned counsel for the Union of India, we have refrained from doing so. However, we place our strong disapproval on record for the conduct of both the Under Secretaries. The Union of India will take note of this conduct changing the original government decision while purporting to quote it in verbatim as if permitted will seriously affect the interest of the administration. 24. Therefore, in the 1952 communication, while dealing with the nature of the Malabar Malikhana allowance, the Union of India has only observed that Prima facie the Malikhanas, which the British conferred on Chieftains who had been formerly dispossessed of their territories by the Muslim Rulers, cannot be regarded as compensation for territorial rights but before taking a final decision in the matter, the Government of India receive necessary particulars from the State Government. 25. Since the Appellants contend that what is granted is not a pension, but a compensation for relinquished territories and properties, which stands on a different footing, that a decision of the Union of India on that ground was necessary. 25. Since the Appellants contend that what is granted is not a pension, but a compensation for relinquished territories and properties, which stands on a different footing, that a decision of the Union of India on that ground was necessary. While rejecting the Petitioners' representation, the Under Secretary has projected that the Union of India has already concluded the issue by holding that the Malabar Malikhana allowance is not a compensation but only, at the most, a pension and a bounty. In fact, the Under Secretary has stated that the Malikhana has all along been treated as compensation for territorial rights. The Under Secretary has reproduced the 1st and 2nd columns correctly; however, he has completely rewritten the 3rd column from the 1952 communication and decision. We have not been shown any final decision on the issue raised by the Petitioner regarding the nature of the Malabar Malikhana allowance and whether it should be treated as compensation for the relinquishment of territories and properties. Learned counsel for the Union of India sought to draw our attention to a communication dated 8 October 1958, written by the Secretary, Government of India, to the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala. However, it refers to the 1952 guidelines as regards the character of Malabar Malikhana allowance and no other decision. 26. The complex historical background could be a reason for only the prima facie opinion and not a final one. The authoritative book “Malabar Manual” by William Logan (1887) provides a detailed history of the Malabar regi on, covering key periods: from ancient history to the Portuguese period (1498-1663), the Mysore conquest (1766-1792), and British rule (1792 until the publication of the book). The book discusses the reign of the Zamorins and the interactions and conflicts between the Zamorin rulers and the rulers of Mysore. Logan refers to an agreement dated 27 September 1719 between the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Madras and the Zamorin of Calicut. This agreement gave the Zamorin exclusive control over the management of the Calicut province. The present agreement referred in the book is from 15 November 1806, where the Principal Collector, Mr. Warden, formalised terms with the Zamorin regarding the Malikhana allowance—a fifth share of district revenues set aside for the Zamorin family's maintenance. The family was paid an annual sum of Rs. 1,32,163, which also guaranteed their loyalty and good behaviour toward the East India Company's Government. Warden, formalised terms with the Zamorin regarding the Malikhana allowance—a fifth share of district revenues set aside for the Zamorin family's maintenance. The family was paid an annual sum of Rs. 1,32,163, which also guaranteed their loyalty and good behaviour toward the East India Company's Government. Another important book on this subject, “Zamorins of Calicut” by K.V. Krishna Ayyar (1938), traces the history of the Zamorins in detail. It covers the rise of Calicut, the arrival of Vasco da Gama, the influence of the Portuguese and Dutch, the Mysorean invasion, and the relationship between the Zamorins and the British. In Chapter 17, the author highlights that the Zamorins were among the earliest allies of the British in India, dating back to 1615. One of the first treaties involved the English agreeing to assist the Zamorin in expelling the Portuguese. The Author states htat although Hyder Ali later occupied Calicut, the Zamorins supported the British against him and his son, Tippu Sultan, after the expulsion of the Mysore forces, the Zamorins re-established themselves, but they struggled to maintain peace and authority without the support of the East India Company's military. It is then stated a key agreement was reached on 18 August 1792 for one year, laying the foundation for future arrangements. This agreement involved joint administration, with the Zamorins responsible for justice, revenue collection, and operating a mint, subject to certain payments. Then it is narrated that the British Company appointed commissioners and ministers to negotiate a permanent settlement. On 3 January 1795, a new five-year agreement was signed with the Zamorins, however, the Zamorins had difficulty collecting revenues, leading the Company to temporarily resume control of the land, later returning it upon receiving security from the Zamorins. Ultimately, in 1792, the Zamorins relinquished their authority over the land. On 1 July 1800, the Malabar region was formally transferred to the Madras Presidency. On 15 November 1806, the agreement was finalised, establishing the political relationship between the Zamorins and the East India Company. These are some of the historical facts mentioned by the Author. 27. The above snippets of history are not mentioned to draw any conclusion on the subject matter but only to emphasise that these authoritative books reveal a complex historical relationship between the Zamorins and the East India Company. These are some of the historical facts mentioned by the Author. 27. The above snippets of history are not mentioned to draw any conclusion on the subject matter but only to emphasise that these authoritative books reveal a complex historical relationship between the Zamorins and the East India Company. It does not seem to be a straightforward ruler-subject dynamic, as the region witnessed multiple wars, invasions, and treaties involving the Portuguese, Mysore rulers, and the British. The 1806 agreement was thus the result of this intricate history. Perhaps that is the reason the 1952 guidelines issued by the Government of India provided only a prima facie opinion on the Zamorins’ claims, noting the impact of Muslim rulers such as Hyder Ali and Tippu Sultan on the territories and the need for detailed feedback from the State on the issue. 28. As stated earlier, what is placed before us is only 1952 guidelines where no final opinion as to the character of Malabar Malikhana allowance has been rendered. The counter affidavit does not refer to any decision taken post-1952 on consideration of all aspects after feedback from the State Government as stated therein. The letter of rejection in the counter misrepresented the facts by changing the clause of 1952 guidelines. The rejection of the Petitioner's representation was, therefore, entirely perverse without reason and was in bad faith on the part of the officers. 29. In these circumstances, the impugned communications dated 25 May 2012 and 6 January 2015 will have to be quashed and set aside, and the representation will stand restored. The Respondent Union of India will have to decide regarding the Appellants' prayer for enhancement of Malikhana payment by examining the nature and characteristics of Malabar Malikhana compensation as we are not shown any detailed consideration examining necessary historical documents on this aspect. Therefore, a detailed decision in this regard is necessary. If the Union of India requires any information from the State Government, the State Government will provide the same. 30. In the light thereof, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 26 October 2023 is quashed and set aside. The orders dated 25 May 2012 and 6 January 2015 are also quashed and set aside. The representation of the Appellants stands restored to the file. 31. 30. In the light thereof, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 26 October 2023 is quashed and set aside. The orders dated 25 May 2012 and 6 January 2015 are also quashed and set aside. The representation of the Appellants stands restored to the file. 31. It is open to the Appellants to submit an additional representation on the nature of Malabar Malikhana compensation. After that, the Union of India will take a decision on the representation of the Appellants and their request for enhancement of Malabar Malikhana compensation after dealing with the issue regarding the nature and characteristics of the Malabar Malikhana compensation as to whether it is a pension/grant or is it a compensation for properties. Needless to state, the decision would be taken on its own merits. Representation will be decided within six months of the Appellants submitting their additional representation, and a copy of the decision containing reasons will be addressed to them. If the response is in the negative, the remedies of the Appellants are kept open. 32. We clarify that we have not directed reopening the issue if the Union of India has already thoroughly examined it taking into account all relevant aspects including the response of the concerned State. If such a detailed consideration has indeed been undertaken, a copy of the decision be furnished to the Appellant, and an appropriate explanation for non reference to it in the impugned order and counter be given along with the same. 33. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. Out of indulgence, we have not imposed costs on the Respondents.