AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
An order of rejection dated August 17, 2016 rejecting the claim for Freedom Fighters’ Pension is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order does not take into consideration the evidence produced before the adjudicating
authority. The adjudicating authority failed to take into consideration the fact that, there are no records available in respect of all the applicants for
Freedom Fighters’ Pension. It should have accepted the personal knowledge certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. He submits that, there is
no form for issuance of certificate. Consequently, the impugned order should be set aside.
The respondents are represented.
As a Writ Court, I am not called upon to exercise jurisdiction as an appeal Court. A writ petition is maintainable, if the petitioner is in a position to
substantiate that, the impugned order is without jurisdiction, breaches any fundamental right of the petitioner, was passed in violation of the principles
of natural justice or is non speaking.
In the present case, the application of the petitioner was heard in terms of the order dated August 8, 2016 passed by the High Court. By the order
dated August 8, 2016, a contempt petition was disposed of directing the authorities to decide the issue on the basis of the order dated May 16, 2016
passed in the writ petition. The order dated May 16, 2016 passed in the writ petition allowed the petitioner to lead secondary evidence and the
authority to consider the same, in accordance with law. The application of the petitioner was considered. The evidence led before the authority was
considered. The authority upon considering such evidence did not find in favour of the petitioner.
As noted above, a Writ Court need not convert itself to be an appellate authority even if, there is no provision for appeal.
The impugned order is reasoned. It cannot be said that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
In such circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order warranting an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
W.P. No.10536 (W) of 2017 is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.