IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 16227 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ POCKAN, KANIYANTAVIDA HOUSE, POST- ONJIYAM, CHOMBALA, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673001. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, PERSONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16227/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE ADDL.TASILDAR. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.8.2006. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.10.06. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW DATED APPLICATION DATED 3.1.2007. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.1.2007 BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.8.1982 ON BEHALF OF 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16227 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter who participated in the Quit India Movement and Liberation Movement relating to Mahe. Claiming the benefit of the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme implemented by the 3rd respondent, petitioner submitted application dated 10.6.1981. There was no response and that made the petitioner to file further representations including Ext.P1. These applications were supported by Ext.P3(a) and P4(a) certificates issued by prominent freedom fighters whose competence to certify is sought to be supported by Exts.P3 and P4. However, claim was eventually rejected by Exts.P6, P8 and P9. The ground raised in these orders of rejection are that at the time of Quit India Movement, the petitioner was only 13 years, and therefore, it was most improbable that the petitioner would have participated in the movement or that a warrant of arrest would have been issued against him. It is challenging these orders, the writ petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner, his participation having WPC No. 16227/07 :2 : been certified by Exts.P3(a) and P4(a), the benefit of Freedom Fighters' Pension could not have been rejected merely on the ground that he was only 13 years of age. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.18466/04. 3. Exts.P6, P8 and P9 are the orders of rejection. As already stated, the only reason stated is that, at the time of the Quit India Movement, petitioner was only 13 years of age, and therefore, his participation was improbable, and that, being a minor, warrant of arrest could not have been issued against him. Admittedly, his participation in these movements are certified by Exts.P3(a) and P4(a). Neither of these documents nor the authenticity of the persons who have issued these documents have been referred to or doubted. In such a situation, the question to be considered is whether the claim could have been rejected merely on the reason that the petitioner was only 13 years of age. This question has been answered by this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No. 18466/04, where it has been held that a claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground that at the time of participation, the claimant was not a major and that too in the WPC No. 16227/07 :3 : absence of any such restriction in the scheme governing grant of pension. Once this objection raised in the impugned orders is overruled, the other objections doubting the participation of the petitioner and the unlikelyhood of warrant of arrest issued against him are merely assumptions made by the authorities, and therefore, on the facts as stated above, I am inclined to think that these orders are absolutely unsustainable and are to be quashed. 4. Therefore, I quash Exts.P8 and P9 and direct that the 1st respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner resulting in the aforesaid orders in the light of the provisions contained in the scheme governing grant of pension to the deserving freedom fighters. The matter will be reconsidered and orders will be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp