IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW No.128 of 2007 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Dept. of Home Affairs, New Delhi 2.The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter Section, Government of India, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003 3.Under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of India, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market New Delhi-110003 4.Chief Controller of Accounts, Pay and Accounts Officer (Pension and Miscellaneous) Ministry of Home Affairs, 10/2 Jam Nagar House, New Delhi 110011----------------------Respodents/Petitioners Versus 1.SHRI HARDEO PRASAD SINGH son of late Janakdhari Singh resident of village Singariawan Police Station Fatuha (at present Sahjahanpur) District Patna—Petitioner/ Opposite party 2.The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Joint Secretary, Department of Home(Special) Bihar Government of Bihar, Patna 4.The District Magistrate, Patna—Respondent—Opp.parties ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Sanjay Kumar For Respondent No.1 :M/S Ajay Kumar Thakur Md.Imteyaz Ahmad For the State :Mr.Vinod Kumar,A.C. to S.C.1 ----- 4. 01.07.2009 The review application has been filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2006 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 10153 of 2004. It is stated that freedom fighter’s pension was sanctioned to the petitioner of the said writ petition w.e.f. 21.11.1981 by letter dated 23.7.1998 on provisional basis and was subject to review by the President and liable to cancellation/modification without any notice if it was found that it was sanctioned on mistaken 2 grounds or false information. It is further stated that the review of the case of the writ petitioner was taken up on the basis of a suo motu matter heard by this Court in C.W.J.C.No.10638 of 2001 and in pursuance of the direction of this Court the State Government had got the cases of certain persons, including the petitioner of the present writ petition, who were granted freedom fighter’s pension, enquired by the respective District Magistrates and in the case of the petitioner of the writ petition by letter dated 12.2.2002 recommended to the Central Government for immediate cancellation of the pension of the petitioner, apart from those of other persons. It is submitted that before canceling the pension a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and pending final decision his pension was suspended by letter dated 7.3.2002 and only after receiving reply to the show cause the pension was cancelled by letter dated 12.4.2004. It is further submitted that the reason for cancellation of freedom fighter pension was that in terms of the enquiry report the age of the petitioner in the year 1942 would have been only 11 years and he had neither participated in the 3 freedom movement nor had gone to jail or absconded as per report of the District Magistrate. It is urged by learned counsel that merely having taken active part in the freedom movement or having remained underground without court’s/Government’s orders proclaiming a person as an absconder, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention, does not entitle a person for grant of freedom fighter’s pension. Several other submissions are made on behalf of the petitioner in support of the review application. However, it is evident from the order dated 28.2.2006 under review that the Central Government was very much represented in the case and had chosen not to file any counter affidavit in the matter. It is not the case of the review petitioner that no opportunity was given to it to file counter affidavit to place the facts before the Court in the matter. The State Government had filed its counter affidavit and on the basis of the facts placed before the Court the writ petition was allowed. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has also failed to show any error of law apparent 4 from the face of the order on the basis of which the order dated 28.2.2006 can be reviewed. From a perusal of the said order it is evident that the order of the Central Government canceling the freedom fighter’s pension was quashed on the ground that the counter affidavit did not show that the Sub Divisional Officer at the time of making the enquiry had applied his mind as to upon which ground the petitioner was granted freedom fighter’s pension, and whether it was appropriate to grant such pension to the petitioner on such ground and whether the said ground was non-existent. This Court does not find any error of law apparent from the face of the order. The review application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the Central Government to initiate a fresh enquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, if so advised. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/ 5