Manipur High Court
Shri Tongkholun Kuki Aged About 92 ... vs Union Of India on 21 October, 2021
KABORAM Digitally signed
by
BAM KABORAMBAM
SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2021.10.21 Item No. 16
SINGH 15:58:43 +05'30' (Through Video Conferencing)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.A. No. 26 of 2021
1. Shri Tongkholun Kuki aged about 92 years, S/o (L) Somkhojang
Kuki, New Lambulane, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
2. Shri Hemkholun Kuki aged about 93 years, S/o (L) Shri Letkhosei
Kuki of Phungtha Village, at present residing at K. Mongjang
Village, P.O., P.S. & District Churachandpur, Manipur.
3. Smt. Dimhat Kukini, aged about 85 years, W/o (L) Shri.
Sheikhomang Kuki, S/o (L) Shri Yangkholun of Chassad Village,
P.O. & P.S. Chassad Kamjong, Ukhrul District, Manipur, now at
present residing at C. Joujang Village, BPO Motbung, P.S. -
Sapermeina, Kangpokpi District, Manipur.
Appellants
Vs.
1. Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs (FFR Division), Government of India, NDCC-II, Jai Singh
Road, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The State of Manipur represented by Secy./Commissioner
(Home) Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, Babupara,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
For the appellants : Mr. Serto T. Kom, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. S. Samarjeet, Sr. PCCG
Date of Order : 21.10.2021
Page 1
ORDER (ORAL)
[1] Heard Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel, appearing for the
appellants, and Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG, for respondent No. 1.
[2] The unsuccessful petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 770 of 2018 are in
appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of the said writ petition vide judgment and
order dated 04.09.2019. Their prayer in the writ petition was to quash and set
aside the letters dated 26.07.2017 and 23.02.2009 issued by the Union of India.
These letters pertained to the rejection of their claim for restoration of Freedom
Fighter's Pension.
[3] The learned Judge recorded in the judgment under appeal that it
was pursuant to the orders passed by this Court that the Government of India
constituted a committee to examine the claims of those who were earlier granted
Freedom Fighter's Pension but suffered cancellation thereof subsequently.
Admittedly, the findings of this committee were not in favour of the appellants.
However, these findings were not subjected to challenge independently by the
appellants. Taking note of this aspect, the learned Judge opined that as long as
the committee's report was not assailed, this Court could not substitute its
findings for that of the committee. It was on this ground that the learned Judge
dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the appellants herein to question
the report of the committee before any forum, including the Civil Court.
[4] Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel, does not dispute the fact that
the findings of the committee do not support the appellants. He would however
seek to attack such findings on the strength of a prayer made in the rejoinder
affidavit filed in the writ petition to set aside the committee's report. When the
appellants took no steps to amend their prayer in the writ petition at the
appropriate stage and the committee's report along with the findings contained
therein were not subjected to a substantial challenge, we are of the opinion that
Page 2
such a challenge cannot be maintained in this indirect fashion. That is, perhaps,
the reason why the learned Judge reserved liberty to the appellants to at least
take corrective measures in that regard at least at this stage.
We therefore find no grounds to interfere with the judgment and
order under appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed, reiterating the
liberty granted to the appellants herein to question the report of the committee, if
so advised, before any forum, including the Civil Court.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through whatsapp to
the learned counsel for the parties.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
Page 3
