CHANDRA DUTT SENANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by the State Government by which the payment of 'Political sufferers' pension" to the Petitioner was stopped. The Petitioner was receiving pension under a scheme by the State Government. It provides for payment of pension to the freedom fighters and to members of their families. Rules have been framed for the payment of the pension. Rule 7 of the Rules provides that the pension granted under the Rules may be stopped, inter alia, on the ground that the receipient of the pension was indulging in anti -national activities. The State Government acting under this Rule passed an order stopping the payment of pension to the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner was found to be indulging in anti -national activities. Feeling aggrieved the Petitioner filed the present petition.

(2.) IT has not been denied by the Respondent that the pension under a Scheme framed by the State Government is being paid to political sufferers under the Scheme and Rules known as "Swatantrata Sangram Senaniyon Aur Unke Parivaron ko diye jane vale Anudan tatha Swatantra Sangram Pension Sambandhi Niyam." It is also not denied that the Petitioner was receiving a pension under this Seheme. The stopping of the payment has affected the payment of money to the Petitioner and has consequently brought about Civil consequences adverse to the interest of the Petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel relied on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Anji Raju v. State : AIR 1961 AP 123. It was a case in which some land was given to the Petitioner by way of provisional assignment by the State Government on the basis of their being a political sufferers. Subsequently the assignment was not confirmed, the Petitioners feeling aggrieved filed the writ petition. The Court came to the conclusion that the Notification under which the assignment had been made did not create any enforceable legal right in favour of the Petitioners so as to entitle them to seek the remedy in Court. This case is distinguishable, firstly on the ground that there is no finding that the order passed against the Petitioners had tarnished their reputation, and secondly because in the present case the payment of the pension to the Petitioner is controlled by Rules framed by the State Government. Once the rules are violated, and the consequence of the violation is the deprivation of a Civil benefit to a person, he can maintain an action in Court to require the State Government to act in accordance with rules even though they might be administrative and not legislative directions. As held in the case of Erusian Equipment and Chemicals (Supra) "The Government is a Government of laws and not of men. It is true that neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent has any right to enter into a contract but they are entitled to equal treatment with others who offer tender or quotations for the purchase of the goods. This privilege arises because it is the Government which is trading with the public and the democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination in such transactions. Honfeld treats privileges as a form of liberty as opposed to a duty. The activities of the Government have a public element and, therefore, there should be fairness and equality." A fortiori, if the State Government acts in a matter which may create arbitrariness, its action will become liable to challenged.