C.W.P. No.17121 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17121 of 2010 Date of Decision. 14.07.2011 Lakhwinder Kaur widow of Gurinderjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through its Principal Secretary, Department of Rehabilitation, Govt. of Punjab, Punjab Mini Secretariat, Sector-9, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Mittal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner, wife of one Gurinderjit Singh, seeks for quashing of the report and order passed by respondent Nos.3 and 5 respectively rejecting the claim of the petitioner that she be issued with a red card in terms of a policy for rehabilitation and providing ex-gratia payments for victims of terrorism in the State of Punjab. The admitted case is that on the intervening night of 17.8.1989/18.08.1989, the husband of the petitioner along with his brother had been murdered. The petitioner had fled from the village even earlier and shifted to Hong Kong where her parents were, on account of the threats that existed even for her life at the hands of terrorists. The petition is moved after 20 years after the incident, after a decision has been made on the application of the petitioner on 21.12.2009 by the Sub Divisional C.W.P. No.17121 of 2010 -2- Magistrate, Batala that the petitioner's husband was himself not a victim of terror but a perpetrator, as one alleged to be associated with terrorists at that time. Sub Divisional Magistrate has subsequently informed to the petitioner that the deceased had relations with terrorists and cases in connection with terrorism had been registered against him. The death itself was on account of an inter-gang war amongst the terrorists and therefore, the petitioner's husband could not be said to be a victim of terror. 2. On a notice from Court, after the petition was filed, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, City Batala has sworn to an additional affidavit giving the details of criminal case that had been registered against the petitioner's husband. There were at least three cases FIR Nos.136, 54, 172 dated 16.5.1984, 18.02.1988 and 18.11.1996. In two cases, the cases had been registered against the petitioner's husband and certain others stating that they were themselves involved in terrorist's activities but in both those cases, there have been acquittal rendered in favour of Gurinderjit Singh against the charges leveled against him. In FIR No.172 dated 18.11.1996, it was a case that was required to be dropped since all the persons who were named in the FIR had been killed before the trial took place. 3. One issue becomes clear that the petitioner's husband had been named as involved in the terrorist's activities prior to the date of his death. It was just as well that he was not himself a terrorist but there was surely material before the Police that he was not a victim of terror. If this case had been filed immediately after his death, there could have been appropriate proof of the fact that he was innocent and C.W.P. No.17121 of 2010 -3- that he was not in any way connected with terrorism. If the petitioner had gone out of country and would file an application seeking for consideration of some privileges attached to the issuance of a red card after two decades, I would believe that the petitioner has been guilty of extreme laches and it shall not be possible to secure to the petitioner the relief, which she is seeking for in the writ petition. 4. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 14, 2011 Pankaj*