CWP No. 12212 of 1998 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12212 of 1998 Date of Decision: July 18, 2011 Arjan Singh ….Petitioner Versus Union of India and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Ms. Sarita Tanwar, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate & Mr. Prabhasher Singh Walia, Advocate for Union of India-respondent No.1 Mr. N.S. Pawar, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. *** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. *** K. KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition seeks for quashing the order passed by the respondents rejecting the claim for Freedom Fighter Pension through the orders dated 03.11.1982 and 13.12.1982. The petitioner appears to have given several representations subsequently and after a delay of 16 years, he has filed the petition. 2. I had directed the Union Government to produce the records as to why the petitioner’s claim was rejected even though the petitioner was making reliance on the Chief Secretary’s communication granting financial - 1- CWP No. 12212 of 1998 assistance to Arjan Singh under the National Workers Relief Fund at ` 15/- per month at the instance of Superintendent, Political Suffers acting for the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab. The documents brought before the Court by the Union of India points out to several incivilities. It has been stated by the petitioner that the period of imprisonment was from 15.08.1945 to 01.03.1946. A person who was said to be aged 67 years at the time when the representation was given in the year 1996, this would mean that he must have been born in 1929 and that he must have been 13-14 years of age at the time when he was imprisoned. If we must discard this representation in the year 1996 as irrelevant for a decision which is taken in the year 1982, then it should only be seen in the context of an affidavit which the petitioner had made available. Originally he had given affidavit of one Kapoor Singh and Bachittar Singh and later he sought the rejection of these two affidavits and submitted an affidavit of Jangir Singh and Santokh Singh. In the affidavit of Jangir Singh, it is stated that he was a fellow-prisoner with Arjan Singh, the petitioner at Shanghai Camp (China) from 15.08.1945 to 01.03.1946. This conflicts with the petitioner’s own contention that he was in Shanghai Jail for four months and later sent to the Madras to serve the sentence till March 1946. The documents submitted by the petitioner do not help the case of the petitioner and the rejection of his claim, therefore, is justified. 3. This will not however be any disqualification, if the petitioner submits appropriate and cogent proof to the Union of India about his stands as a Freedom Fighter with proof of imprisonment in the manner required under the relevant scheme under which the petitioner makes the claim. If the petitioner does so, the same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from the time when the petitioner gives - 2- CWP No. 12212 of 1998 such request with proper proof in the manner laid down under the Scheme in which the petitioner makes a claim. The writ petition is dismissed but with the observations as referred to above. 18.07.2011 (K. KANNAN) vcgarg JUDGE - 3- CWP No. 12212 of 1998 1. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be satisfied if representation (Annexure P-4) addressed to the 2nd respondent, may be considered by the authority. 2. The representation (Annexure P-4) shall be sent along with the copy of this order and the decision shall be taken by the 2nd respondent within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 3. The writ petition is disposed of as above. */** 1. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents in terms of a similar direction given by this Court in CWP No.11534 of 2011, dated 07.07.2011. The respondents shall take appropriate decision on the representation under Annexure P-13 in the light of directions contained in the judgment of this Court in CWP No.19007 of 2002. It shall be taken within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. *** 1. Counsel for the petitioner states that he will be satisfied if a direction is given to respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation which is given under Annexure P-4. 2. Such a representation shall again be sent to the 2nd respondent along with the copy of this order and from the date of receipt, a decision shall be taken within a period of 8 weeks. This shall not be taken as constituting any vested right for the petitioner to demand the relief which he has asked for. The decision will be taken in accordance with law by the respondents. 3. The writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission dispensing with the notice to the respondents having regard to the nature of order that is passed. ( *** 1. To a claim for arrears of pension the response by the Union is that the arrears have not been paid on account of oversight. The petitioner claims the arrears as payable from 2.10.2006 to 24.2.2009 under the Swatantar Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The arrears as determined shall become payable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 2. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. **** - 4- CWP No. 12212 of 1998 The petitioner is aggrieved against an action taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act taking up possession of a property which, according to the petitioner, is unjustified. The petitioner's grievance is that even when the money was ready to be paid to the Bank, the Bank would not receive the same but would obtain unlawful entry into possession of property and lock the premises. Any action pursuant to Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act is appealable under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and this point has been squarely covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank Versus Ashok Saw Mills- 2009 (8) SCC 366. I decline the intervention as sought for by the petitioner and dismiss the writ petition. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 12.07.2011 *** Learned counsel for the State states that the stamp duty collected has already been repaid to the petitioner and the present petition has become infructuous. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Dismissed as infructuous. **** 1. Counsel for the petitioners seeks for permission to withdraw the present writ petition. 2. As ordered. 3. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ( 1. At the asking of the Court, Shri Arvind Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that as a person, who has taken licence to telecast through a private channel, there are several persons, who are causing danger to his life. The petitioners shall be at liberty to serve a copy of the petition to respondents 3 to 5 and on such representation given, they shall ensure that appropriate protection for life and liberty has been given to the petitioners. 3. The writ petition is disposed of as above. **** 1. The petitioner's grievance is that in spite of the - 5- CWP No. 12212 of 1998 recommendation from the State Government for grant of freedom fighter's pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme after verifying with the credentials of the petitioner's claim as a freedom fighter and as one who has suffered imprisonment to become eligible for the claim under the scheme, the Union Government has not taken its decision. I find that the recommendation from the State has gone as early as on 06.03.1995 and it is a pity that the Union is allowing the letter of recommendation to gather dust. A claim for pension and more Civil Writ Petition No.18621 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - particularly from a person claiming to be a freedom fighter shall be attended with all the alacrity that the situation demands. Payment of pension to a freedom fighter is not a State largesse. It is another method of redeeming our own sense of gratitude for what the freedom fighters did for the country. No stone shall remain unturned without securing to a freedom fighter what the society owes to them. There have been any amount of lofty expressions that have come from portals of Courts; there have been high volume speeches that would fall from the ramparts of red fort on republic days and independence days, waxing eloquent about the sacrifices of the freedom fighters but if they do not get translated in terms of money to the freedom fighter, it is a sad day for the creditability of public utterances. The annual reminders of the freedom that we have earned through the Independence day or Republic day celebrations shall also be the days of reminder of extraordinary sufferings undergone by freedom fighters. This is not meant to be mere pontification but expression exhorting the administration to unshackle from bureaucratic inertia. 2. There shall accordingly be a direction through a mandamus issued by this order that the 2nd respondent considers forthwith the representation given by the petitioner in the year 1995 and examine his plea for pension in the light of recommendation of the State and the documents submitted already. The Union shall lose no further time by engaging in lengthy paper communications and futile exchanges to subvert what the petitioner would deserve if his status as claimed is true. The decision shall be taken and communicated to the petitioner within 4 Civil Writ Petition No.18621 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order with copy of representation dated 06.03.1995 and if a decision were to accede to the petitioner's status, the amount shall be paid with all the arrears within 12 weeks from the date of the decision. 3. The writ petition is disposed of as above. *** 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that at this stage, the writ petition has become infructuous and seeks for dismissal as such. 2. The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. - 6-