P.N.PARAMAN v. IMPLEADED

O.P. NO. 10129/2003: 2 :ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 17529/2003 IN O.P. NO. 10129/2003CLOSED22.08.2007SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.APPENDIXPETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SSS PENSION SCHEME, 1980.EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. 41460/94 OF THE DISTRICTCOLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DATED 21.7.1994.EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERFOR GRANT OF SSS PENSION DATED 16.4.1998.EXT.P4:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.H3-269/98/SR DATED -3-2000 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA TO THEPETITIONER.EXT.P5:TRUE COPY OF THE NARC ISSUED BY THE SUPDT. OF POLICE,ALAPPUZHA DATED 01.06.2000.EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NARC ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIALMAGISTRATE, ALEPPEY IN CASE NO. P.E.7/1122 ON THE FILE OF THESPECIAL COURT, ALLEPPEY.EXT.P7:TRUE COPY OF THE PKC ISSUED BY SRI. NARAYANAN RAMANKUTTY.EXT.P8:TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE EXTRACT OF THE CONVICT REGISTER OFCENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM ISSUED BY THE SUPDT. OF THATPRISON IN RESPECT OF SRI. NARAYANAN RAMANKUTTY.EXT.P9:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. H3.28582/02/D.DIS. DATED24.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA TOTHE PETITIONER.EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THEPETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2002./True Copy/P.A to Judge. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J================================O.P. NO. 10129 OF 2003 ================================Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2007.JUDGMENTThe deceased 1st petitioner was a freedom fighter who had actively participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar Struggle during the freedom struggle. On account of his active participation in the said struggle, arrest warrant was issued against him by the Special Magistrate Court, Alleppey in case No. P.E.7/1122 M.E.He had gone underground for a period of more than one year from November, 1946 to December, 1947 pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued against him.

The deceased 1st petitioner was granted FreedomFighters' Pension (State Pension) as per Ext.P2 order dated21.07.1994. Ext.P3 dated 16.04.1998 is the application for pension under the S.S.S. scheme.

By Ext.P4, the District Collector directed the petitioner to produce the documents like warrant of arrest or the copy of the register showing the persons who have gone underground and in the absence of the same, Non-availability of Records Certificate O.P. NO. 10129/2003:2 :from the Sub-Jail/Central Jail, office of the DistrictSuperintendent of Police, State Intelligence Bureau and VillageCrime Book and an affidavit attested by the Judicial First ClassMagistrate. In reply to the same, the petitioner produced Ext.P5NARC from the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha, Ext.P6 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha, Ext.P7- PersonalKnowledge Certificate issued by Sri. Narayanan Ramankutty and Ext.P8, the extract of the Convict Register relating to thecertifier.

The District Collector by Ext.P9 informed the petitioner that the government has rejected the application as copies of official records or other acceptable certificates have not been produced by the petitioner. Again, the petitioner filed Ext.P10before the State Government requesting to recommend the case of the deceased petitioner, relying upon the principles declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Phandari v.Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 2127) and Gurdial Singh v.Union of India (2001 (8) SCC 8). O.P. NO. 10129/2003:3 :

Since no further action was taken, the original petition is filed seeking various reliefs. The petitioner expired on 03.02.2005and the additional petitioners have been impleaded as per Orderin I.A. No. 7360/2005.

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein the stand taken is that certificate of Sri. Ittiyathi Vasudevancannot be accepted as he is not an eligible certifier. With regard to the NARC from the Superintendent of Police and the ChiefJudicial Magistrate Court, the stand taken is that there is nothing to conclusively show that the petitioner had any connection with the case. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner has not produced any reliable Non-availability of Records Certificate. Thecounter affidavit shows that the District Collector on 25.01.2003submitted a report not recommending the case in the absence of any acceptable documents.

The counter affidavit shows that no objections have been taken in respect of Exts. P7 and P8. The certificate issued by Sri. Narayanan Ramankutty and the extract of the Convict Registergives details of his imprisonment. The eligibility of the said O.P. NO. 10129/2003:4 :certifier have been accepted in other cases also. The question is whether the objection that the NARCs are not acceptable iscorrect. In the NARC issued by the Superintendent of Police -Ext.P5 it is clearly certified that no records are available, in respect of the certificate sought for and in the NARC issued from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court also, it is recorded that the records of the year 1122 have already been destroyed. Therefore, it is a case where the competent authorities have certified that the records relating to the warrant of arrest sought for by the petitioner are not available. It is not explained in the counter affidavit as to what are the requirements of a validN.A.R.C. At any rate, when the above certificates convey the idea that the records are not available, there is no justification in rejecting the same. The above is supported by the judgment of this Court in Sadananda Swamy v. Union of India (2004 (2) KLT 76)(SN) where the petitioner had filed an application pointing out the particular case number showing him as an accused and when the court has certified that the records relating to that order are not available, the rejection of the certificate was O.P. NO. 10129/2003:5 :held evidently wrong. It was observed that " in such a situation taking a lenient view one can only go by the consistent pleading of the petitioner that the case relates to the freedom movements. " The very same situation arises here also.

Apart from that, this is a case where for the very same suffering in the freedom struggle, the deceased petitioner had been granted pension by the District Collector as per order dated21.7.1999. It is evident that the same was granted to him satisfying that he is a genuine freedom fighter and that he had undergone the very same suffering. It is, therefore, a case where the action taken by the District Collector not to recommend the application for pension is clearly without any application of mind.