Fictitious Claims Must Be Sternly Dealt With On Merits; Care Must Be Taken To See That Real Freedom Fighters Don’t Suffer: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that the fictitious claims by the ones claiming to be freedom fighters must be sternly dealt with on merits and care must be taken to see that real ones do not suffer.
The Court observed thus in a Writ Petition filed by a person claiming to be a freedom fighter who participated in freedom struggle including Rajupet Sathyagraha Camp in Andhra Pradesh.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar elucidated, “In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts all care has to be taken to see that real freedom fighters do not suffer and their claims are accepted, but, at the same time, fictitious claims have to be sternly dealt with on merits.”
Senior Advocate G. Papi Reddy represented the Petitioner while AGA Bhojegowda T. Koller and Advocate K. Prasanna Shetty represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts -
The Petitioner claimed to be a freedom fighter who participated in the Rajupet Sathyagraha Camp in Andhra Pradesh and the Mysuru Palace Chalo Sathyagrahis Movement in 1947. He was in imprisonment in Kolar sub-jail during September and October 1947. He applied for and received state political pension in 1981 under the Karnataka State Freedom Fighters Welfare Rules, 1969. Thereafter, he obtained certificates from a co-prisoner (M.V. Venkatappa), Members of Parliament, and Members of the Legislative Assembly. The State Government sanctioned Rs. 100/- per month as honorarium after detailed examination. Pursuantly, the Respondent filed a Complaint alleging the that the Petitioner falsely claimed honorarium using fabricated documents.
The Complaint was referred to the Karnataka Lokayukta, leading to an enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District. The Petitioner then received a show-cause notice and submitted explanations with supporting documents. The Tahsildar, Mulbagal Taluk, issued a notice directing the Petitioner to refund Rs. 9,08,661/- by May 30, 2019. Being aggrieved, he filed a Writ Petition, which was deemed premature, but allowed for future challenge. Resultantly, he sought to quash the recovery notice and annexures, citing lack of jurisdiction under Section 8(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “… we are of the considered view that, by entertaining applications like the one presented by the petitioner without any proof regarding his participation in freedom struggle which has been dealt with by the respondent no.1 to 5 on investigation and directing to take necessary action to get refund of the honorarium received, cannot be found fault with.”
The Court further noted that, if such applications are entertained, the scheme would be converted into a bounty and those who have actually rendered valuable sacrifices may remain deprived. It added that, this would amount to abuse of scheme.
“The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court regarding the grant of freedom fighters pension were to ensure that, no genuine freedom fighter should be denied the pension. If the claim of the present petitioner is accepted less said the better, it would amount to abuse of scheme”, it also said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that there is no case made out by the Petitioner to issue the Writ as prayed in the Petition and thus, it is liable to be dismissed for the reason that, there is no acceptable evidence placed on record by him to grant the relief so claimed by him in the Petition.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- M.V. Srinivasa Gowda v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate G. Papi Reddy and Advocate Varun Papi Reddy.
Respondents: AGA Bhojegowda T. Koller and Advocate K. Prasanna Shetty.
