IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22108 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, "POURNAMI", CHENKAL, P.O.VATTAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.S.EASWARAN MR.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION, FIRST FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADVS. MRS.P.SAREENA GEORGE, CGC FOR R1 MR. K. RAMESH -GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. TPM IBRAHIM KHAN – ASST. SOL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22108 of 2008 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF APPLICAT5ION DTD 20.10.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS. EXT.P2: COPY OF REMINDER DTD 25.6.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P3: COPY OF REMINDER DTD 11.12.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P4: COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.G14-31160/06 DATED 28.2.2007 ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPLY DATED NIL. SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3. EXT.P6: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.102047/F.F.P.B.1/04/GAD DATED 3.5.07 ISSUED BY THE R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.22108 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the20th day of MAY, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter entitled to pension under the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Schemes of the State and Central Government. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted all relevant documents as per the schemes framed by the two governments along with the applications submitted by him. But by Ext.P6 order, the claim was rejected by a non-speaking order. According to the petitioner, the documents produced by the petitioner along with the application, which are produced as Ext.P1 series of documents, are more than sufficient to prove the eligibility of the petitioner for pension. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government giving some reasons as to why the petitioner’s documents cannot be accepted. But Ext.P6 is bereft of any reason whatsoever. It merely says that the petitioner has not produced any acceptable documents in support of the application. The respondents have no case that the petitioner has not W.P.(C)No.22108/08 2 produced Ext.P1 series of documents, which contains several co-prisoners' certificates which certify that the petitioner was a freedom fighter and has the prescribed qualification for pension. It cannot be ascertained from Ext.P6 as to why those documents are not acceptable as proving eligibility of the petitioner for pension. As such, I am inclined to quash Ext.P6 order on the reason that it violates principles of natural justice, since the person who files an application under the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme is entitled to know as to why the documents produced by him are not acceptable, which Ext.P6 does not contain. In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 is quashed. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the Schemes applicable as also the numerous decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, especially the one which directs that wherever additional documents are necessary it is the duty of the state to get it from the appropriate offices under them to enable a freedom fighter to get pension. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If documents already produced are not sufficient, the petitioner W.P.(C)No.22108/08 3 shall be informed about the same giving him an opportunity to produce necessary documents. But if those documents are documents available with Government offices, respondents 2 and 3 themselves shall obtain the same. A freedom fighter cannot afford the luxury of approaching this Court again and again. Because of the lapse of respondents 2 and 3 in considering the application appropriately and passing a reasoned order, the petitioner is being forced to go through the process again and if ultimately he looses, he will have to again shell out further money for challenging the orders. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct respondents 2 and 3 to pay costs since it is because of their lapse that the petitioner is being put to these difficulties. Respondents 2 and 3 shall pay an amount of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) as costs of this writ petition to the petitioner within one month. The State can recover the costs from the person responsible for passing the non-speaking order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.22108/08 4 W.P.(C)No.22108/08 5