IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25754 of 2004(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BALAN NAIR, S/O. RAMUNNI NAIR, UPPASSANKANDY HOUSE, CHEMMANCHERY P.O., KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFPB) DEPARTMENT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K. SANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).25754/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PROMINENT FREEDOM FIGHTER K.NARAYANAN EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PROMINENT FREEDOM FIGHTER V.M. DAMODARAN EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF NARC ISSUED BY RDO, KOZHIKODE, DT.9.8.02 EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF ORDER FOR FREEDOM FIGHTERS PENSION EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.22.6.04 ISSUED BY FFPB RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R2(A):-TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.57183/FFP/B1/93/GAD DT.31.12.93 okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.25754 OF 2004 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The writ petitioner, who claims to be a freedom fighter, is aggrieved by rejection of his application for Freedom Fighters Pension. According to him, he had participated in the riots broke out at a place called Chemmanchery in Malappuram District, which is recognised as an agitation of freedom struggle. He claims that he went underground when a criminal case was registered against him in connection with the above incidents, in order to avoid arrest on a warrant issued against him. Along with the application the petitioner had produced Ext.P1 and P2 certificates, issued by two well-known freedom fighters who were awardees of “Thamrapathra” and allottees of Central Freedom Fighters Pension. He had also produced Ext.P3 “Certificate of non-availability of records” obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer, to the effect that no records pertaining to any arrest warrant issued against the petitioner is available, on the basis of verification made in the office of the RDO and on the basis of report received from the Tahsildar, Quilandy. It is averred that the application of the petitioner was considered by the Advisory Board constituted at the District W.P.(C).25754/04 2 level, on 25.4.2003, and recommended the petitioner's name for grant of pension, as evidenced by Ext.P6. But his application was rejected through Ext.P5 order issued by the Government, dt:22.6.2004. It is evident from Ext.P5 that on an earlier occasion, by virtue of order dt:6.12.2003 the application of the petitioner was rejected and subsequently he had filed a representation on 24.3.2004 seeking reconsideration of the said decision. But in Ext.P5 it is stated that the petitioner was not able to produce any proof to show that he had undergone any sufferings in participation of the freedom struggle, and hence no reconsideration is warranted. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent it is stated that the District Collector, Kozhikode had reported to the Government that the facts stated in the 'Abscondence Certificate' produced by the petitioner is not true, and that the petitioner had not revealed the freedom movement in which he had participated. Hence the District Collector had not recommended the application for allotment of Freedom Fighters Pension. In the counter affidavit it is further pointed out that the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence from official records, such as arrest warrant, court records, jail records etc. as required under the Government circulars issued in this W.P.(C).25754/04 3 regard. It is also stated that there was no explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay caused in applying for pension. The averments in the counter affidavit is to the effect that the review petition submitted by the petitioner could not be considered since he has not produced any new materials or records. It is contended that the decision of the Advisory Committee is not final and that the 2nd respondent is the competent authority to take a decision in the matter. 3. On a perusal of Exts.P1 to P3 documents it is evident that the petitioner has not fully satisfied the requirements as stipulated in the scheme and circulars issued by the Government. The certificates Ext.P1 and P2 obtained from prominent freedom fighters, do not mention any details about the case in which arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner, and about the freedom struggle in which he took part. So also, Ext.P3 is a certificate issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, whereas the requirement is for production of a “Non- Availability of Records Certificate” to be obtained from the Magistrate Court concerned. Under these circumstances I could not find any fault with Ext.P5 order rejecting the application. At the same time I make it clear that if the petitioner could able to substantiate his claim through proper documents as required under the provisions of the scheme, his case need W.P.(C).25754/04 4 reconsideration. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to submit fresh application for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension supported by proper documents. Needless to say that if such application is received the authorities concerned will deal with the same and take appropriate decision as early as possible. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb