IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 26455 of 2005(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.POOKUNJU, SHAJAHAN MANZIL, ADINADU NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, (VIA) KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.), ADV. SRI.M.R.SABU. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, CHAIRMAN OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM FIGHTERS, OFFICE OF THE COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE TAHSILAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26455/2005-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).29988/03 DT. 18/05/05 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CO-PRISONERS CERTIFICATE DT. 21/01/01 ISSUED BY SRI. K. GOPINATHAN. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE CO-PRISONERS CERTIFICATE DT. 10/01/01 ISSUED BY SRI. P.K. BHASKARAN. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 21180/99 DT. 08/12/99 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 9136/99 DT. 30/11/99 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. N2-18980/2003 (2) DT. 10/04/03 ISSUED BY R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (P).NO.5708/05/GAD DT. 23/07/05 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.N2-18080/03 DT. 25/07/05 ISSUED BY R2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26455 of 2005 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who claims to be a freedom fighter applied for freedom fighter's pension under the scheme framed by the Government of Kerala. The application was admittedly submitted in the year 2001, long after the nation attained independence. By Ext.P5 order passed on 10.4.2003, the District Collector, Kollam rejected the application. The petitioner challenged Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.29988 of 2003. By Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 18.5.2005, this Court quashed Ext.P5 and directed the respondents to process the petitioner's application afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was held that the reasons stated in Ext.P5 to reject the petitioner's request for grant of freedom fighter's pension are not sustainable. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, the State Government considered the petitioner's case afresh and passed Ext.P6 order dated 23.7.2005 rejecting his application for W.P.(C)26455/2005 2 freedom fighter's pension. By Ext.P7, the District Collector, Kollam communicated the decision of the Government in Ext.P6 to the petitioner. The petitioner has, in this writ petition challenged Exts.P6 and P7 and prayed for the following reliefs:- a) issue a writ of certiorari or other writ or order or direction calling for the papers leading upto Ext.P7 and quash Exts.P6 and P7; b) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to process the application of the petitioner as directed in Ext.P1 judgment; without any delay and pass orders granting freedom fighters pension to the petitioner under the scheme framed by the Government of Kerala. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the two grounds stated in Ext.P6 to reject the application submitted by the petitioner are not sustainable in law. The learned counsel contended that certificates similar to Ext.P2 and P2(a) submitted by persons who are drawing freedom fighter's pension have been accepted by this Court in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. It was further contended that the date given in Exts.P2 and P2(a) with reference to the English calendar year was mistakenly entered when the date given in the Malayalam year was converted into English calendar year. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit disputing the entitlement of the petitioner for freedom fighter's pension. The State Government has in the counter affidavit, contended that apart from the fact that the W.P.(C)26455/2005 3 petitioner's application was belatedly made after the last date fixed for the purpose, viz. 31.3.1994, one of the certificates issued to the petitioner from a co-prisoner who is said to have undergone imprisonment during the freedom struggle cannot be relied on in view of the defects noticed in Ext.P6. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The first reason stated in Ext.P6 to reject the petitioner's application is that one of the certificates issued by a co-prisoner is not acceptable for the reason that it states he had undergone imprisonment after the nation attained independence. The second reason stated is that the application was belatedly made after the last date fixed for the purpose. The relevant portion of Ext.P6 reads as follows:- The produced co-prisoner's certificates were not acceptable since the certifiers did not have minimum imprisonment sufferings. The jail records of K.Gopinathan show the imprisonment period as from 10th Meenam 1115 to 10.6.1116. According to the jail records of Sri.P.K.Bhaskaran, the certifier was submitted into jail on 11th Dhanu and released on 3.2.1123. The 12th Vrichikam 1123 shown as the date of sentence of Sri.P.K.Bhaskaran corresponds to 27.12.1947 i.e. the certifier commenced the undergoing of the sentence only after independence. In short the period and place if imprisonment claimed by the petitioner with that of certifiers did not tally. The name of the movement in which the petitioner had participated was not mentioned by the certifiers. Therefore the co-prisoner's certificates were not acceptable. The claim was enquired through the Tahsildar, W.P.(C)26455/2005 4 Karunagappally and he has reported that the petitioner is not an actual freedom fighter and also specifically has stated that, the petitioner was not eligible for the freedom fighters' pension. Thereafter the claim was verified at Govt.level and was rejected. Then the petitioner had petitioned before the KSHRC as RMP 3333/02 KSHRC and the same was duly replied requesting also for rejection of the petition. The acceptance of co-prisoner's certificates should have correlation with the period and place of imprisonment claimed by the petitioner and that of certifiers. Here the period and place of imprisonment claimed by the petitioner and those of certifiers are entirely different. Moreover the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claimed sufferings with acceptable documentary evidence. in the circumstances DC, Kollam has further suggested that the request of the petitioner may be declined and petition may be rejected accordingly. After considering the above points, Government do not find any reasons to differ from the views of the D.C. Kollam. KFFP Scheme was started with effect from 1.4.1971. Even after 20 years since the inception of the scheme, applications were being received without acceptable certificates. Hence as per Circular No.57183/93/GAD dtd.31.12.1993 Govt. fixed a target date .i.e.31.3.1994 for submitting applications and it was made clear in the circular that applications received thereafter will be considered only on production of documentary evidence from official records such as warrant of arrest, court record, jail records clearly showing the applicants' suffering in connection with freedom struggle. In this case the petitioner submitted application only on 22.2.2001 and without documentary evidence from official records. The scheme of KFFP was started on 1971. The petitioner has applied for pension only on 22.2.2001. No convincing grounds are seen to condone the delay in submitting the application also. 4. The Apex Court has in Union of India v Avtar Singh (2006 (6) SCC 493) held that when the authorities concerned have on a W.P.(C)26455/2005 5 consideration of the materials on record found that the applicant for freedom fighters pension does not satisfy the basic requirements for grant of pension and have refused to grant pension under the scheme, the High Court would not be justified in directing the authorities to grant pension to the applicant. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court and in view of the finding of fact arrived at by the Government on the basis of the materials produced before it, I am of the opinion that the findings in Ext.P6 cannot be faulted. In my opinion, the petitioner has not established that he was imprisoned in M.C.No.122 of Karunagappally Police Station along with Mr.K.Gopinathan and Sri.P.K.Bhaskaran who have issued Exts.P2 and P2(a) respectively. The petitioner has not produced any material to establish his claim. I therefore hold that no case has been made out to interfere with Exts.P6 and P7. The writ Petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/