U K KUNHI CHOYI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.No.4624 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The appellant claims to be a freedom fighter. He submitted an application before the Government of India for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. The said application was rejected by the Government of India as per Ext.P2 letter dated 30th July, 1985. In Ext.P2 letter the appellant was informed that his case did not come under the purview of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 for the reason that he did not produce any acceptable documentary evidence from official records relating to the underground sufferings claimed by him and also for the reason that the State Government did not recommend his case. According to the appellant, he had submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 23.8.1985 to the Government of India requesting for reconsideration of his case and for grant of freedom fighter s pension to him. It is not stated whether the appellant received any reply to Ext.P3. However, it is stated that he submitted Ext.P4 pro forma to the Government of India. It is also stated that along with Ext.P4 the appellant submitted Ext.P5 abscondence certificate dated 30th September, 1981 issued by one N.K.Damodaran Nair and extract of convict register. There is not date on Ext.P4. It is not stated when it was submitted. Ext.P5 abscondence certificate is dated 30th September, 1981. That is prior to Ext.P2. The extract of convict register is dated 15.6.1973. That is also prior to Ext.P2. Long thereafter the appellant submitted Ext.P7 petition dated 16.6.2000 to the District Collector, Kozhikode. The request in Ext.P7 was to consider the appellant s application for SSS pension and pass appropriate orders recommending his application for pension to the appropriate authority. Though in Ext.P7 reference is made to a government letter dated 1.3.2000 and a letter dated 6.5.2000 of the District Collector they are not produced. Presumably in response to Ext.P7 petition the appellant was informed by the District Collector, Kozhikode by Ext.P9 letter that the Government as per the letter dated 12.10.2000 had informed that the appellant s application for SSS pension could not be recommended for want of sufficient documents. Thereupon the appellant filed O.P.No.4624 of 2002 challenging Exts.P2 and P9.

(3.) The challenge against Ext.P2 communication was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the challenge was made nearly 17 years after the issuance of Ext.P2 and hence it was highly belated and the appellant was guilty of laches. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that according to Ext.P2 the appellant did not produce any acceptable documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of sufferings. According to the learned Single Judge when there is no acceptable evidence the claim of the appellant for freedom fighter s pension was liable to be rejected. The challenge against Ext.P9 letter was also rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay as well as on merits. The learned Single Judge pointed out that even though Ext.P9 communication was dated 20.11.2000 the original petition was filed only on 8th February, 2002. According to the learned Single Judge the original petition did not disclose any valid ground against Ext.P9. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the appellant s application for freedom fighter s pension had been rejected on 30.7.1985 as per Ext.P2 and therefore the issue stood finally decided in 1985 and there is no question of taking up the same issue again and again. It is also pointed out that according to Ext.P9 the appellant had not submitted any acceptable evidence to substantiate his claim.