IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.651 of 2009 MOSMAT CHANDRAWATI DEVI, Wife of Late Sarju Prasad Verma, Resident of Village-Brahampur, P.S.-Brahampur, District-Buxar. ……Petitioner..appellant. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through Secretary, Ministry of Home, Govt. of Bihar, New Delhi. 2. Under Secretary to the Govt. Department of Home, Govt. of India (Freedom Fighter Cell, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 3. Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railway, E.(W) Branch, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. Chief Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Limited Maurya Lok Complex, Dakbunglow Road, Patna. 6. Commissioner Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 7. Joint Secretary Home (Special), Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 8. Under Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Home (Special), Old Secretariat, Patna. 9. District Magistrate, Buxar. 10. District Engineer, Bhojpur at Ara. 11. Treasury Officer, Buxar. 12. S.D.O. Dumraon, Distt.-Buxar. 13. District Superintendent of Education, Buxar. …..Respondent…Respondent. ----------- For the Petitioner : Sri J.P. Shukla, Sr. Adv. Sri Surendra Kr. Singh, Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 : Mr. Pravin Kr. Verma, AC to SC X. For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate for Railways. For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. Sudhir Singh (ASG) Mr. Sarvadeo Singh (CGC) For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. M.K. Singh. ------------ 04. 01.09.2009 Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The present appellant’s husband was given the benefit of pension as payable to a freedom fighter and in that capacity - 2 - license of petrol pump was also granted to him. After his death the petrol pump was transferred in the name of his widow (present appellant). The High Court had directed to enquire into the matter and the State Government after inquiry reported that the deceased husband of the present appellant was not a freedom fighter. Subsequently, the pension given was cancelled and there was a direction for refund of the pension already received. Consequently, many other privileges were also cancelled. At this stage the present appellant filed CWJC No. 14629 of 2005 challenging the order of cancellation of grant of pension of freedom fighter. The learned single Judge noticed that several disputed questions of fact started and therefore observed it was not a fit case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but observed that it would be open to the present appellant to file appropriate suit in the Civil Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that many documents had not been noticed by the learned single Judge and therefore the order of the learned single Judge requires to be re-considered. It is well-known that a writ of certiorari Court does not sit as an appellate authority over a view arrived at by the Tribunal as has been rightly observed by - 3 - the learned single Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that at any rate the pension had already been paid and such amount has been spent by the deceased husband and the direction by the Departmental authorities regarding refund of the fund already disbursed as per order dated 28.10.2005 should at least be quashed. Since the pension had already been granted and spent by the person concerned, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to quash that part of the order dated 28.10.2005 but we are not inclined to interfere with any other consequential benefits. It is made clear that it would be open to raise all questions in the Civil Court and such matter has to be decided on its own merit. Vikash/- (P.K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)