RAJA DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2973 of 2004 RAJA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2

23.1.2009 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsels for the Union of India and State of Bihar are present. Earlier this Court by an order dated 13.2.2001 let off this petitioner probably by taking a compassionate view that the petitioner was a lady and therefore, when she was in need of some financial assistance, she may have overstepped her limits touching the fringe of even purgery. In fact, it would be found that in the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner, this Court while dismissing the writ application had made the following observations:-

The less said about this writ petition the better because whatever this Court might have to say would reflect against the petitioner and may possibly expose her to prosecution for making incorrect statement on affidavit.------

The petitioner had however filed appeal being LPA No. 296/2001 and the appeal was also dismissed with an observation that if there be any fresh material, the case of the petitioner may be considered 2 afresh in accordance with law. It is this order dated

18.7.2001 which somehow had made the petitioner even more ambitious and she had renewed her prayer for grant of freedom fighter pension by claiming herself to be the wife of late Ramadhari Singh who was granted freedom fighter pension in the year 1972. The authorities had again re-considered the whole case of the petitioner and they had found that the entire story introduced by the petitioner of being married to late Ramadhari Singh in the year 1970 when late Ramdhari Singh was aged about 60 years and she was aged about 16 years, was wholly unbelievable. The authorities have also found that as a matter of fact even in the year 1972, late Ramdhari Singh had a wife whose age was 50 years and who had a daughter aged about 16 years and a son aged about 12 years. On that basis, they have analyzed the whole case of the petitioner and in the opinion of this Court, rightly so, that the petitioner could not have been the wife as her age in the year 1972 at best would have been only 17-18 years. Their further analysis that the petitioner being herself aged about 18 years could not have a daughter aged about 16 years and a son aged about 12 years also, is not incorrect in any manner. As a matter of fact, it has emerged during course of enquiry that the petitioner is 3 definitely not the wife of late Ramdhari Singh rather she is grand daughter-in-law of late Ramdhari Singh and has come up with a story of being a wife only because late Ramdhari Singh in his initial application claiming pension filed in 1970 had not disclosed the name of the wife and had only stated about a wife aged about 50 years. These questions whether the petitioner is the wife of late Ramdhari Singh or whether she was trying to dupe the authorities and also this Court, can hardly be gone into in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the Counsel for the petitioner has not appeared, this Court would leave the matter at rest, otherwise it was a fit case where her prosecution could have been ordered for again swearing a false affidavit before this Court in course of filing of this writ application. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)