IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.590 of 2009 Umesh Singh, son of Komal Singh, resident of village Dinabigha, P.S. Bikram Distt. Patna. …Intervenor…Respondent…Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna. 4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Paliganj, District Patna. 5. The Block Development Officer, Bikram, Patna 6. The Treasury Officer, Patna. ….Respondents-Respondents. 7. Kamla Singh, son of late Megha Singh, resident of village Dina Bigha P.O. Datiana P. S.Bikram District Patna. ….Petitioner…Respondent. 8. Union of India, through Secretary (Home) Freedom Fighter Division, New Delhi ….Respondent. ----- 3. 14.05.2009 Heard Mr.Dhananjay Kumar for the petitioner, learned Assistant Counsel to G.A.6 for the State, and Mr. Sarvadeo Singh for respondent no.8. We do not feel the necessity of issuing notice to respondent no.7 in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass. Respondent no.8 of CWJC No.15761 of 2006, has preferred this appeal in terms of Clause X of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.2.2009. The appellant raises a grievance with one part of the order, whereby the learned - 2 - Single Judge has directed that the writ petitioner shall continue to receive the benefit of the Freedom Fighters’ pension till such time the enquiry against him(the respondent no.7 herein) is concluded. In his submission, he was able to make out a prima facie case before the writ Court that the writ petitioner had obtained the benefit of Freedom Fighters’ pension by acts of misrepresentation and fraud and, therefore, there cannot be any justification for the direction that he shall continue to receive the benefit till the conclusion of the enquiry. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We personally feel that the learned Single judge should not have passed the order for continuance of payment during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings. However, we do not consider it a sound exercise of discretion to modify the order, inter alia, for the reasons that the main matter is now pending before the Central Government. We are not inclined to interfere with the order. Let respondent - 3 - no.8 herein conclude the enquiry expeditiously. This court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of five months. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. hr ( S. K. Katriar ) ( Kishore K. Mandal )