Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnu Kumar Soni vs Under Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 6 February, 2013
Writ Petition No : 8145 / 2009
Vishnu Kumar Soni (Arya) Vs. State of MP and another
06.02.2013.
Shri Sanjay Sarwate for the petitioner.
Shri S.S. Bisen, Government Advocate, for the
respondents.
Interalia contending that petitioner is a Freedom Fighter and is entitled to the Samman Nidhi, under the MP Swatantra Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Rules, 1972 and by the impugned order-dated 23.2.2006, his application for grant of the benefit is rejected in an arbitrary and illegal manner on the ground that he has not undergone imprisonment for the stipulated period, this writ petition is filed.
Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention to the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of Samman Nidhi - Annexure P/5 and points out that in this application various particulars with regard to detention and arrest of the petitioner is indicated, but without considering these periods, the application has been rejected and, therefore, seeking a direction to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance to the information submitted in Annexure P/5, learned counsel makes a submission that the matter be remanded back to the competent authority.
Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate, opposes the aforesaid prayer and points out that the application that was submitted by the petitioner before the competent authority was Annexure R/1 and his application has been considered in accordance to the details given therein. It is stated that certain additional information available in the photocopy filed by the 2 Writ Petition No : 8145 / 2009 Vishnu Kumar Soni (Arya) Vs. State of MP and another petitioner as Annexure P/5 are not indicated in the document Annexure R/1 and, therefore, it is the case of the respondents that petitioner by filing a false and fabricated document, is trying to make out a new case and on the ground that petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands, respondents pray for dismissal of this writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.
The respondents are right in contending that there is some difference with regard to the statement made in Annexure R/1 and the document filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/5. Both the documents are notarized by the Notary concerned, his seal and the date of execution is indicated, but certain information in Annexure P/5 filed by the petitioner in this writ petition is not available in Annexure R/1. The petitioner has explained this by contending that this information was received by him later on and he has submitted the correct application, but the same is not available on record.
Be it as it may be, the petitioner is a senior citizen, more than 83 years of age, and if by mistake he could not submit the correct particulars, respondents should give him an opportunity to give all the particulars and thereafter an inquiry should be conducted. To that extent, opportunity should be granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, it is directed that in case petitioner submits a fresh application in the prescribed proforma alongwith all the relevant documents in proof of his detention, respondents shall 3 Writ Petition No : 8145 / 2009 Vishnu Kumar Soni (Arya) Vs. State of MP and another re-examine the matter and shall consider the claim of the petitioner fresh and decide it within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, for the present, this petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-