AYODHYA PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who claims to be a freedom fighter, has come up with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the natue of certiorari quashing the order dated 3-2-1999 as contained in Annexure-1 and to direct the Respondents to pass an order reviving his political pension granted to him by order dated 31- 5-1975 and to pay up-to-date arrears from 1977 and continue to pay the same during his life time.

(2.) TE undisputed factual matrix of the case, as born out from the records are as follows:- From Annexure-4 to the writ petition and Annexure-1 to the Supplementary affidavit it is apparent that vide letter dated 31-5-1975 Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India informed the Accountant General U. P. II, Allahabad that the Government of India had sanctioned a sum of Rs. 200/- per month as political pension to the petitioner which the petitioner continued to receive till it was cancelled vide Government Order No. 164 ZK 16-82-208 K. P. /78 dated 6-11-1982 as communicated to the petitioner vide District Magistrate, Banda's letter dated 18-12-1982 (as contained in Annexure-3 ). The District Magistrate, Banda by the same letter also asked the petitioner to approach the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for his grievances, if any, in the matter and directed him to deposit the amount received within one week failing which strong steps will be taken for their recovery. The petitioner approached the Government of India but without any success. He then moved this Court through Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8470 of 1983 seeking quashing of the communication dated 18-12-1982 aforesaid. That Writ Petition was finally disposed of by order dated 18-8-1998 with the following direction to the respondent Union of India "to decide the matter himself or get it decided by any appropriate authority on a representation to be made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. The approprite authority will decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of making the said representation after giving the petitioner opportunity of hearing. " Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 3-2-1999 rejected the representation of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner solely on the ground that the report from Government of Uttar Pradesh regarding his detention under the Defence of India Rules for a period of six months has not been received even though through the letters dated 21-10-1998 and 25-1-1999 (Annexure 8 and 9) the information was already furnished by the State of U. P.

(3.) SRI Khan contended that the petitioner was imprisoned under the Defence of India Ruls and had remained under detention for more than six months in the District Jail, Banda and the respondents after having examined the requisite material had sanctioned him the political pension but the Government of India respondent No. 1 has cancelled that pension in a wholly arbitrary manner, mechanically, without application of mind and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; the material in regard to imprisonment of the petitioner, sent by the Government of Uttar Pradesh has been deliberately overlooked; and thus the order impugned deserves to be set aside.