SPA/281/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 2991 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  SPA No.281 of 2022
                                  Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
                                  Shri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.

Mr. Anil Anthwal, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. Issue notices.

Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notices.

The present special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.07.2022 rendered by the leaned Single Judge in WPMS No.3215 of 2015. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ- petition preferred initially by Shri Godhan Singh. Shri Godhan Singh had preferred the said petition to seek a direction to the respondents authorities to declare him as freedom fighter and sanction freedom fighter pension to him along with arrears. During pendency of the writ-petition, the original petitioner died. Consequently, his nephew i.e. the present appellant moved an application for impleadment. The learned Single Judge rejected the said application observing that the appellants were only seeking financial benefits out of their uncle's efforts in the freedom fight. They appeared to be greedy persons, interested in financial gains, and they cannot be granted the prayer of issuing discretionary writ of mandamus as sought by them.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants were entitled to pursue the relief sought by the original petitioner to seek a declaration that he was a freedom fighter. As to whether or

not the appellants would have been entitled to any financial benefit was a different matter. However, late Shri Godhan Singh and, thereafter, the appellant were entitled to recognition of the fact that Shri Godhan Singh was indeed a freedom fighter.

We have heard the learned counsels and perused the records.

It appears that the claim of the original petitioner that he was a freedom fighter was examined and rejected by the respondents after examination of the documents and other materials produced by the original writ-petitioner. The relief sought in the writ-petition itself related to the disputed questions of fact which could not have been properly adjudicated in the writ proceedings.

We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was entitled to pursue the writ- petition since it was not merely matter of financial benefit for the original petitioner or his heirs but a matter of honour for the family to get recognition for the original petitioner that he was a freedom fighter.

We, therefore, modify the impugned order. We leave it open to the appellant to pursue the claim that Shri Godhan Singh was a freedom fighter in appropriate civil proceedings. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the said claim of the original petitioner or the appellants.

The appeal stands disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.) 16.09.2022 SS/RB