IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.309 of 2008 JAI GOBIND SINGH ………… APPELLANT Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH THE ADDL. SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HOME MINISTRY (SWATANTRATA SAINIK PRABHAG LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI -3 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI 3. THE STATE OF THE BIHAR THROUGH THE ADDL. SECRETARY HOME SPECIAL DEPARTMENT, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF BHOJPUR AT ARA. ………………. RESPONDENTS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Vidya Sagar Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocates For the respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Asst.SG --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 22nd October, 2008 We heard the counsel for the appellant. 2. It is true that pursuant to the earlier order of this court, the appellant was granted Freedom Fighter Samman Pension from 2nd September, 1997. However, there were large complaints, including against the petitioner (appellant herein) that he has been receiving the benefit of the Samman Pension illegally which led to an inquiry being instituted. After giving show-cause notice to the petitioner and keeping in view the advice of the State government, the Samman Pension granted to the petitioner in the year 1997 was 2 cancelled on 15th April, 2005. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing the writ petition before this court. This court by its order dated 12th September, 2005 quashed the order cancelling the Samman Pension given to the petitioner in the year 1997. The contempt application was filed by the appellant alleging non- restoration of the Samman Pension. The said contempt application was disposed of by this court with liberty to the applicant to adopt an appropriate proceeding in law for redressal of his grievance. 3. It transpires that thereafter an inquiry was conducted and the Executive Magistrate as well as the Additional Collector, Bhojpur at Ara gave a detailed report on 26th May, 2006, indicating diverse reasons in holding that the appellant was not bonafide claimant of Samman Pension; inter alia one of the reasons was that the appellant was ten years of age in the year, 1942. The appellant approached this court again, this time for quashing the report dated 26th May, 2006 given by the Executive Magistrate and the Additional Collector, Bhojpur at Ara. 4. The single judge dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the State authorities to forward his case for consideration, provided the State authorities were convinced that there was enough material available on record requiring reconsideration. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal has been preferred. 3 5. The report dated 26th May, 2006, records that the appellant is not a bonafide claimant for Samman Pension. This court cannot justifiably sit over the report as an appellate authority. The single judge has already given liberty to the appellant to produce the material available with him which may establish that he was major in the year, 1942 and that he participated in freedom movement. The single judge has also clarified that if the State authorities are convinced by the said document, the petitioner’s case may be forwarded for re- consideration. 6. In the light of the liberty granted by the single judge to the appellant, we are satisfied that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 7. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-