THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 10406 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioners claim that they are freedom fighters and in recognition of their contribution, they were granted Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension, but, however, the Ministry of Home Affairs of India, through their communication dated May, 2000, have suspended the said pension, as the Government of Andhra Pradesh appears to have undertaken investigation into the genuineness of their claims. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of the State Government finalizing their investigation and submitting detailed report in the matter, the first respondent has not been deciding the issue one way or the other. If the first respondent is to be satisfied with the report of the investigation filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, then, perhaps, the pension which was awarded to the petitioners earlier, will get revived otherwise, the petitioners are entitled to challenge the adverse findings against them. Instead, keeping their pension to suspended animation for the past nearly eight years, is wholly unjust. Heard learned Assistant Solicitor General of India on behalf of the respondents. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India points out that if there is any adverse material that came to the notice of the first respondent, it is entitled to withhold or even cancel Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension, granted by it. Hardly there is any dispute or doubt with regard to the nature of power available to the first respondent inasmuch as the power to grant always partakes the power to rescind or cancel any grant. Therefore, on the question of availability of power, either for granting or for cancellation of any such grant, there being hardly any doubt, but, however, what is not understandable is the abnormal time consumption by the first respondent to decide the issue. If the first respondent is not satisfied about the report submitted by the State of Andhra Pradesh, it could have called for additional information or if it is satisfied with the nature of investigation and the findings furnished by the State Government, then they must quickly restore Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension to the petitioners. Confining the issue to cold storage for long years apart from being unproductive can also produce very opposite result expected to be achieved by the very grant. In these set of circumstances, I do not find any justification for the first respondent not to terminate the enquiry initiated by it, pursuant to the orders passed in May, 2000. Hence, the respondents are directed to expedite the process of finalizing and take a decision as to whether Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension is to be restored in favour of the petitioners or not and appropriately reasoned decision in this regard be communicated to the petitioners within a maximum period of three months, at any rate before the end of September 2008 i.e. 30.9.2008. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. May 2, 2008 MAS