IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.151 of 2007 Tripit Narayan Singh, Son of Late Bhikhari Singh, Resident of J-192, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna. ----------- Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary, Home Department, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 4. The Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 5. Sri U.N. Panjeear, the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 6. The State of Bihar through Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Freedom Fighters Division, Bihar, Patna. 8. The District Magistrate, Patna. ---------- Respondents/Respondents ----------- 11 20.04.2010 The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge on 12.8.2005 in MJC No. 1831 of 2003. We have heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey for the appellant and Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Amanullah learned counsel for the State. 2 When the appeal as called for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection with regard to the maintainability as well as the directions given in the proceeding for contempt. It was vehemently contended that omnibus directions could not have been given. At this juncture, Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant is 87 years old and had immense anxiety and, therefore, committed a mistake and the mistake of an octogenarian who has got one leg on the grave and the other on the surface of the earth should be pardoned. Learned senior counsel further submitted that he would not claim freedom fighter pension or not pursue the claim. At this juncture, he also submitted that whatever amount had been given was very meager and no step should be taken for recovery regard being had to his age. In view of the aforesaid submission put forth by Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pandey, learned standing counsel appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Amanullah, learned counsel for the State fairly stated that they do not have objection if the whole order is recalled with a stipulation that the appellant shall 3 not pursue his claim for freedom fighter pension and there would be no recovery. In view of the aforesaid consensus arrived at, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in MJC No. 1831 of 2003 is recalled. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Rishi (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)