- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:96 WP No. 65692 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.65692 OF 2009 (GM-FF) BETWEEN: 1. NINGAVVA W/O. CHANNAMALAYYA, AGED: 83 YEARS, R/O: DALIKOPPA NOW RESIDING AT KELAGERI, TQ AND DIST DHARWAD. 2. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. LATE GULAPA MUDUKAPPANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/O: HAVERIPET, TQ AND DIST DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO GOVT., DPAT ( AR-POLITICAL PENSION), M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DHARWAD DISTRICT, D.C.COMPOUND, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, BEARING NO. ¹.D.¸ÀÄ.E/38 PFW 2005 BANGALORE DATED 3.8.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ANOTHER ORDER BEARING NO. ¹.D.¸ÀÄ.E/38 PFW 2005 BANGALORE DATED 3.8.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:96 WP No. 65692 of 2009 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: a) Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other order, quashing the impugned orders passed By the 1st respondent, bearing No. ¹.D.¸ÀÄ.E/38 PFW 2005 Bangalore dated 3.8.2009 Vide Annexure-C and another order bearing No. ¹.D.¸ÀÄ.E/38 PFW 2005 bangalore dated 3.8.2009 vide Annexure-D. b) Pass any other order/s that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard Sri H.M. Dharigond, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned AGA for respondent. 3. It transpires that the petitioners themselves were participants in the freedom movement and were granted pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme by the State Government recognizing the role of these petitioners in the freedom movement in the year - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:96 WP No. 65692 of 2009 1993. When things stood thus, it transpires the respondent cancelled the pension of the petitioners by a common order where pensions granted to several persons stood cancelled. This becomes the subject matter of Writ Petition No.18004/2005. The said Writ Petition comes to be allowed by the Coordinate Bench by the following order: “8. The impugned orders do not contain the finding, much less the allegation that the petitioners husbands had produced the forged documents and obtained the Freedom Fighter's Pension. The one and the only ground stated in the impugned order is that the petitioners have failed to establish that their husbands had indeed taken part in the freedom struggle. It is profitable to refer to Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill –v- Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 wherein it is held that the validity of the order has to be judged by the reasons mentioned therein and not by fresh reasons supplied by the statement of objections or the affidavit. As the reason Stated in most untenable I quash the impugned orders. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. I direct the respondents to pass fresh orders after giving reasonable opportunities to the petitioners. In a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:96 WP No. 65692 of 2009 case like this, where the petitioners are not only illiterate but also extremely poor and old, it is expected that the respondents shall collect further evidence and confront the petitioners with the same, if the family pension has to be withdrawn from them. Considering the advancing age of the petitioners, I deem it necessary to direct the respondents to pass fresh orders in the matter within an outer limit of three months, after holding the enquiry.” 4. Identical orders were passed prior to the passage of the aforesaid order which was followed by the Coordinate Bench and orders were passed directing reconsideration. The reconsideration is what has led to passage of the impugned order dated 03.08.2009. This order is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 5. The learned counsel Sri H.M. Dharigond appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners are not the widows of the freedom fighters, they are themselves freedom fighters and recognizing their services, their role in the freedom - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:96 WP No. 65692 of 2009 movement, pension was granted. It is erroneously cancelled. 6. Learned AGA appearing for the respondent- State would submit that the petitioners’ respective husbands were granted pension on 16.01.1993 and after the directions from the Central Government, the same has been stopped and there is no error that can be pointed at the order that is impugned in the subject petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by respective counsels and perused the material record. 8. The aforenarrated facts link in the chain of events and dates and participation of the petitioners in the freedom movement is a matter of record. It does not require any reiteration. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners merits acceptance as the records reveal that the petitioners’ husbands were not granted any pension on 19.01.1993, as contented by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:96 WP No. 65692 of 2009 learned AGA, but petitioners themselves. As the husbands of petitioners had already died by in the year 1990 itself, and the petitioners who are now 83 and 88 years old, at the time of filing of the petition were themselves freedom fighters. Therefore the order that is passed against the petitioners which is common to all appears to be incorrect as those were the orders concerning grant of family pension in cases where husbands were the freedom fighters. In the case at hand, the petitioners themselves are said to be a part of the freedom movement in the year 1942 and 1943 and second petitioner who is now 100 years old and first petitioner is nearing 100 years. Therefore the order which refers to the husbands the freedom fighters is inapplicable to the facts of the case at hand is erroneous and judgment relied on by the learned AGA in Writ Appeal No.100205/2022 is inapplicable to the fact situation. 9. In that light, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the respondents strictly - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:96 WP No. 65692 of 2009 inconsonance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. 10. For the aforestated reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 03.08.2009 vide Annexure-C and another order dated 03.08.2009 vide Annexure-D are quashed. (iii) Matters are remitted back to the State to consider and pass necessary orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NAA/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1