IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 1727 of 2009 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2469/2004 Dated 07/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- R.GOPINATHAN NAIR, ANANDA BHAVANAM,PALACE WARD,THEVALLY,KOLLAM-9, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENMADOM,NEAR IRON BRIDGE, POONITHURA,KOCHI-682 317. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL ADMINISTRATION FREEDOM FIGHTERS PENSION (FFP) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM FIGHTERS PENSION HEADED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE,KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.1727 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of December 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.BASHEER, J. Appellant claims that he was a freedom fighter. He filed the writ petition praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P9, P12 and P13 and also to issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction to respondent No.2 to recommend his case for grant of Swantrata Sainik Samman Central Pension with effect from September 28, 1988, the date of Ext.P2 application submitted by him in this regard. 2. The learned Single Judge repelled all the contentions raised by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition holding that the denial of pension was fully justified. Appellant impugns the above judgment in this appeal. 3. The case of the appellant in brief before the learned Single Judge was that he had participated in freedom struggle in Thangassery of Quilon district during the period from 1946 to 1947. He had given up his education after he joined the National Congress Movement for freedom struggle. According to the appellant, he remained underground from October 30, 1946 till July 10, 1947 in connection with the freedom struggle. An arrest warrant was issued against him in C.C.78/122 registered by the Quilon Kasba Police under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant further contended that he had to abscond from the area in order to evade his arrest. He further claimed that he became ill because of the “oppression and suppression of the State Police together with starvation and torture” and was W.A.No.1727 OF 2009 :: 2 :: undergoing treatment for a prolonged period. In 1988, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for SSS pension under the scheme promulgated by the Central Government. He produced certain documents apart from certificates issued by other freedom fighters in support of his claim. However, the District Collector, Kollam by Ext.P9 communication, dated April 25, 2001, informed him that the Government had rejected his claim since the abscondance certificate issued by S/Shri. V.K.Karunakaran and K.C.Govindan and Non-Availability of Records certificate from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam were not found to be acceptable. 4. Thereafter, the Government reconsidered the matter as directed by this court in Ext.P11 judgment. By Exts.P12 communication the Government informed the petitioner that his request for issue of Non-availability of Records Certificate cannot be granted. In P13 order, the Government concurred with the view taken by the District level committee and rejected the claim for pension. 5. It was in the above circumstances that the appellant had filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending inter alia that the certificates issued by the two freedom fighters ought to have been accepted by the Government. Similarly, the certificate of Non Availability of Records also should have been properly considered by the authorities in the facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance was also palced on the decisions in Mukund Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of W.A.No.1727 OF 2009 :: 3 :: India [AIR 1993 SC 2127], Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and others [(2001) 8 SCC 8] and also in Mammen v. State of Kerala [1999 (2) KLT 472] in support of his contention that a hyper technical view shall never be adopted while dealing with a claim for freedom fighter's pension. 6. It has to be noticed that a claim for freedom fighters pension has to be initially scrutinised at the district level. The District Collector is the Chairman of the committee constituted for the said purpose, which includes other prominent members and officials. The committee has to consider the claim in the light of the reports to be obtained from officials and also the records produced by the applicant. The recommendation of the District Committee has to be considered by the Government yet again with reference to the entire materials made available in support of the claim. 7. It is trite that this court cannot sit in judgment over the decision of the fact finding authorities like the District Committee or the Government as though the proceeding under Article 226 is akin to appellate jurisdiction. The apex court has repeatedly held that bogus claims will have to be weeded out and only genuine freedom fighters should be granted pension, be it under the State Scheme or under the Central Scheme. 8. In the case on hand admittedly, the appellant had submitted his application only in the year 1988, more than 41 years after the attainment of independence by this country. He had produced Exts.P6 and P6(a) certificates issued by S/Shri. V.K.Karunakaran and K.C.Govindan, two freedom fighters W.A.No.1727 OF 2009 :: 4 :: who are recipients of pension. In these certificates, it has been stated that the petition had gone underground for more than six months between October 30, 1946 and July 10, 1947 on account of his participation in “Indian National Congress Freedom fight and Travancore State Congress Freedom Fight” respectively. As regards the certificate issued by Sri.V.K.Karunakaran, (Ext.P6) the District Collector took the view that it was unacceptable as several certificates issued to the said person were found to be bogus. In the case of the certificate issued by K.C.Govindan, Ext.P6(a), it was noticed that he had not undergone imprisonment for the minimum period of two years in connection with freedom struggle. Moreover the certifier was no more. 9. It is significant to note that the appellant did not have a case that he had undergone imprisonment in connection with the freedom struggle. His case was only that he had gone underground in connection with freedom struggle for a few months between 1946 and 1947. Though he contended that an arrest warrant was pending against him, he could not produce any document in support of the above contention. In Exts.P6 and P6(a), there is no reference to any arrest warrant. As rightly pointed out by the Government, the Non Availability of Records Certificate produced by the appellant did not mention the case number in relation to which an arrest warrant had been issued against him. 10. Further, under the SSS pension scheme, underground suffering has been specifically qualified by certain conditions which in the case of the W.A.No.1727 OF 2009 :: 5 :: appellant were not at all satisfied as noticed by the Government in Ext.P13 order. The only bald and unsubstantiated averment made by the appellant was that he had gone underground from October 1946 till July 1947 and that an arrest warrant issued by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollam was pending against him. 11. In Sitaram Khandelwal v. Union of India (2004) 13 SCC 732 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that in the absence of total paucity of material the claim for Swatantrata Sainik Samman pension cannot be granted. Even though there may be some difficulty to obtain copies of old records, the claimant cannot be absolved from the responsibility to produce some material “at least to draw such inference which will make him eligible for pension”. The court therefore took the view that the authorities who rejected the claim for pension were justified in doing so. 12. In Union of India v. Avtar Singh ((2006) 6 SCC 493) , the Apex Court has cautioned the authorities against allowing false claims, though a liberal approach may be warranted in such cases. The Court observed that genuine freedom fighters deserved to be treated with reverence, respect and honour. But at the same time it can not be lost sight of that people who had no role to play in the freedom struggle should not be permitted to derive any undue benefit from the liberal approach that may be desirable. Their Lordships, while setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Cort granting pension to the respondent, further observed that if the W.A.No.1727 OF 2009 :: 6 :: claimant failed to produce necessary documents as required under the Scheme, the decision of the Committee rejecting the claim was not liable to be interfered with. 13. In this context, it may be noticed that the fact finding authorities like the District level committee and the Government in appeal had perused the entire records and come to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to get pension in the absence of any satisfactory material on record to substantiate his claim. 14. As has been noticed already, the appellant had submitted the application for pension only in the year 1988. The fact finding authorities had rejected the claim after a careful scrutiny of the materials available on record. Learned Single Judge had concurred with the view taken by the authorities concerned. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record, we do not find any reason to take a different view. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ appeal, in our view, is devoid of merit and therefore it is dismissed. (S.R.BANNURMATH) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes