IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 3721 of 2009(R) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SARASWATHI AMMA, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.MADHAVAN PILLAI, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, MULAKKAL VEEDU, VELLIMON P.O., EDAVATTOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, FREEDOM FIGHTERS PENSION WING, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 3721/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CO-PRISONER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SRI.P.K.BHASKARAN, A THAMARAPATHRA HOLDER, WHO WAS CO- PRISONER OF SRI.MADHAVAN PILLAI DATED 05/12/2000. P2: COPY OF CO-PRISONER, CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SRI.N.MADHAVAN PILLAI, THAMARAPATHRA HOLDER. P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18/06/1971. P4: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 02/04/2001 SWORN TO BY THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 24/04/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM IN C.C. NO.22/1122. P6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF SREEKRISHNA VILASOM N.S.S. KARAYOGAM, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM DATED 15/07/2008. P7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 09/09/2004 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/06/2008 WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/11/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3721 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August , 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the widow of late Sri.P.Madhavan Pillai, who is stated to be a freedom fighter. According to the petitioner Sri.P.Madhavan Pillai had participated in the struggle against the Divan Rule of Travancore and as a result of which was made an accused in C.C.22 of 1122 before the First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam and he was imprisoned for the period from 5.7.1946 to 12.1.1947. It is stated that in view of the participation of her deceased husband in the freedom struggle, petitioner is entitled to get dependent pension under the State scheme called Kerala State Freedom Fighters Pension Rules. Accordingly the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application enclosing documents substantiating her claim. However by Ext.P10 order dated 14.1.2009 her application W.P.(C) No. 3721 OF 2009 :2 : was rejected on the ground that documents such as jail records, court orders etc. which are essential were not produced. It is challenging Ext.P10 this writ petition is filed. 2. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending that the claim made by the petitioner is unsubstantiated and therefore was rejected. 3. Ext.P10 is the order under challenge. According to the respondents the claim made by the petitioner was not substantiated by jail records and court orders which are essential to sustain the claim. However the Annexures attached to Ext.P9 submitted by the petitioner show that she had enclosed co-prisoner certificate issued by one P.K.Bhaskaran and Sri.N.Madhavan Pillai which certify the imprisonment of her deceased husband during the period mentioned above. Further the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Trivandrum, to the effect W.P.(C) No. 3721 OF 2009 :3 : that Sri.P.K.Bhaskaran and Sri.P.Madhavan Pillai have undergone imprisonment during the period in question was also produced. Annexure D affidavit and Annexure E application made by the petitioner for obtaining certified copy of the judgment in C.C.22/1122 with the endorsement of non availability of records were also produced. 4. Suffice it to say that in Ext.P10 order none of these documents are referred to and the claim was rejected merely by stating that court orders and jail records were not produced. In my view Ext.P10 discloses total non application of mind and failure to consider relevant documents that were produced. Although in the affidavit filed an attempt has been made to explain consideration of the aforesaid documents produced by the petitioner, having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner (AIR 1978 SC 851)this court should W.P.(C) No. 3721 OF 2009 :4 : assess the validity of the impugned order adverting to the contents of the said order itself. In that view of the matter I am not persuaded to examine the correctness of the statements made in the counter affidavit and hold the order valid. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P10 has to be quashed and I do so. The first respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible after duly adverting to the documents produced and pass orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-