Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh & Ors on 13 April, 2010
W.P.No. 2429 / 2001 18-03-2010 Shri R.S.Khare, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Singh, counsel for the respondent No.1/Union of India.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, counsel for the respondent No.2/State.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the denial of freedom fighters pension under the scheme framed by the Central Government in the year 1972 and 1980.
The case of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner was appointed and was working in the erstwhile Custom & Excise Department but was removed from service on account of his activities which were found to be anti Government in that particular point of time. The petitioner submits that he has filed certificates of the then Commissioner, Custom & Excise, dated 11-10-1972 and 14-10-1976 to that effect as well as a certificate of the Collector, Tikamgarh dated 23-12-1963 to the effect that the petitioner was and is a political sufferer. It is further stated that he had also produced certificates of the Freedom Fighter Association, Tikamgarh dated 1-5-1985 in support of his claim for freedom fighters pension under the scheme as well as certificate of prominent freedom fighters and members of the Parliament. It is stated that in spite of the aforesaid as the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.No. 4360/1995 and was disposed of by order dated 6-5-1998 by issuing the following directions :-
"3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondent disputing the contentions raised in the petition. Mr. Gohil, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent, Union of India, suggested that if the petitioner makes a representation to the competent authority of the Central Government along with documents the same shall be considered after getting an inquiry conducted by the agency of the State Government with regard to the genuineness of the documents. Mr. Gohil assures that the representation of the petitioner shall be disposed of within six months from the date of receipt of representation.
4. Recording such assurance the petition stands disposed of."
It is stated that subsequent to the disposal of his petition the petitioner filed a fresh representation claiming freedom fighters pension on 25-9-1998 which has again been rejected by the respondent-Union of India by the impugned order dated 4-11-1999 without calling for or awaiting the report of the State Government. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities dated 4-11-1999 apparently discloses non-application of mind by the authorities as well as non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No. 4360/1995 dated 6-5-1998 and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the petitioner's claim was initially rejected in the year 1973 on account of the fact that his assertions regarding freedom fighting activities and remaining underground were found to be unsubstantiated as the period of petitioner's remaining underground was less than six months which is a pre-requisite under the scheme. It is further stated that the respondent-authorities after scrutinizing the petitioner's case have rejected his claim for grant of freedom fighters pension and in such circumstances no interference is called for in the impugned order.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
From a perusal of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and the impugned order passed by the respondent- authorities it is apparent that the authorities have not complied with the directions issued by this Court inasmuch as they have not waited for the enquiry report in respect of the authenticity of the claim of the petitioner from the State Government as is evident from a perusal of paragraph 1 of the impugned order and have again reiterated the same facts stating that his claim has already been rejected previously. It is also clear that the respondent-authorities have not applied their mind to the claim of the petitioner based on his removal from service as a consequence of which he was deprived of his livelihood on account of his involvement in freedom fighters the activities which is another ground on which the petitioner has claimed freedom fighters pension.
In view of the aforesaid the impugned order dated 4-11-1999 passed by the respondent-Union of India is set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with direction to the respondent- State to submit its report/recommendation on the application filed by the petitioner after conducting an enquiry into the documents and assertions made by the petitioner including his claim regarding removal of service. Looking to the age of the petitioner which is now 91 years the said exercise should be completed by the authorities of the State within six weeks from the date of the supplying of the copy of the order passed today. The authorities of the Union of India on the basis of the recommendations and enquiry report submitted by the State shall take a fresh decision on the application of the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter.
With the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(R.S.Jha) W.P.No. 2935 / 1998 13-04-2010 Shri Parag Chaturvedi, counsel for petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh, counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, counsel for resondent No. 12.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-1988, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sidhi confirming the auction sale in favour of the respondent No.1, order dated 20-6-1994, passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa Division, Rewa and the order dated 26-12-1997, passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior.
The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner's father late Shri Hetram took a loan from the respondent No. 12-bank of a sum of Rs.75,000/- for purchase of a tractor in the year 1981. On non- payment of the loan amount proceedings were taken up by the respondent-bank against late Shri Hetram and 8 acres of land belonging to the deceased Hetram were auctioned in favour of the respondent No. 1 and the auction sale was affirmed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sidhi by the impugned order dated 15-12-1988.
Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa Division, Rewa on the grounds amongst others that the auction proceedings were null and void as they had been taken against a dead person inasmuch as Hetram had already expired on 14-10-1983 and, therefore, the auction proceedings against Hetram taken up by the respondent-bank in the year 1988 were null and void, that the bank had failed to follow the procedure and the provisions of Rule 63 of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Rules which required the bank to auction immovable property of the deceased on the first instance and as the tractor had already been seized by the bank it should have been first auctioned and not the land, and thirdly, on the ground that the petitioner was a minor at the time the auction proceedings which were taken up in the year 1976 and that he took up proceedings by filing an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa Division, Rewa immediately on attaining the majority and in such circumstances, the appeal filed by the petitioner was within time. The appellate authority by the impugned order dated 20-6-1994 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation and the said order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 26-12-1997 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.
From the impugned orders passed by both the appellate authorities it is manifestly clear that the said authorities have not applied their mind to the aforesaid three issues amongst others, raised by the petitioner. The authorities have also not applied their mind to the documents on record indicating the age of the petitioner and the date of his attaining majority, violation of the provisions of aforesaid Rule 63 by the bank by which the bank was required to firstly auction the immovable property and taking up proceedings against a dead person.
In such circumstances, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first appellate authority, i.e. the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa Division, Rewa to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration all the issues raised by the petitioner and by passing a reasoned order thereon. While doing so, the said authority shall also look into the documents filed by the parties and give an appropriate finding in that respect. Looking to the fact that the petition is of the year 1998, it is further directed that the parties shall appear before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa Division, Rewa on 20th May, 2010 and thereafter on such other dates as may be directed by the said authority so that the matter can be adjudicated at an early date.
With the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed to the extent indicated above. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
C.C. as per rules.
(R.S.Jha) Judge mct