PITAMBARA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is classic example as to what extent the bureaucracy could harass a person who had sacrificed his precious time and energy for the freedom struggle and thereby defeat the laudable purpose and object for which scheme framed by the State Government for honouring such freedom fighters and thereby redeem our debt of gratitude to such persons is defeated.

(2.) This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is directed against order dated 10.06.2008 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7372/2008 dismissing the said writ petition filed by the appellant.

(3.) The Government of India framed a scheme called "Swantantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme" with a view to honour freedom fighters and thereby to discharge the debt of gratitude the nation owed to them. The State of Karnataka framed Rules called Karnataka State Freedom Fighters Welfare Rules,1969. Persons who participated in the struggle for liberation of Hyderabad State were also eligible for grant of freedom fighters pension under such scheme. The appellant claiming that he participated in the struggle for liberation of Hyderabad State filed an application on 06-10-1989 for grant of freedom fighters pension under the scheme. Along with the said application, he also enclosed the copies of the arrest warrant issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Brahmapur, Gulbarga and also co-prisoner's certificate issued by Shibiradhipathi Chitaguppikar Hakikatraya who was authorized by the Government of Karnataka for issuing such certificates. It appears the respondent after scrutiny of the papers, by letter dated 14.03.1981 called upon the appellant to produce original documents. According to the appellant, he submitted the originals of those documents which were duly acknowledged by the respondents. However, the respondents once again called upon the appellant to produce the original documents and informed him that if he failed to produce the originals, his application would be rejected. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 28117/1994 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to consider his application and to pass orders expeditiously. The said writ petition came to be allowed and necessary directions were issued. Pursuant to which the application of the appellant was considered by the concerned authority and the same was rejected by order dated 17-06-2004 on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce the original documents to prove that he had participated in freedom struggle. Questioning the correctness of the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 44064/2004 inter alia on the ground that the order came to be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. The said writ petition was allowed and order dated 17-06-2004 was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the concerned authority for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate his claim and then to pass orders in accordance with law. Thereafter, it appears the appellant was given notice to appear before the authorities and to produce the original documents to prove that he participated in the freedom struggle. Though the appellant reiterated his earlier stand that he had already produced the original documents, the application of the appellant came to be rejected by the order dated 07.12.2007 as per Annexure-P to the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce the original documents to substantiate his contention that he participated in the freedom struggle and that there are discrepancies in the copies of the documents produced later by the appellant, therefore, he is not entitled for a grant of pension. The said order passed was questioned by filing Writ Petition No. 7372/2008. The Learned Single Judge after hearing the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, by the order under appeal dismissed the Writ Petition concurring with the order passed by the authorities as per Annexure-P holding that the authorities are justified in opining that the appellant has failed to prove by acceptable evidence that he has participated in the Hyderabad liberation movement, as such, he is not entitled for the pension. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ petition filed by him, the appellant has presented this appeal.