Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Devidas Vishwanath Chauthmal, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the grant of freedom fighter's pension to respondent No.5, Rangnath Asaram Hiwale, alleging that respondent No.5 was not a genuine freedom fighter and had submitted bogus documents. The petitioner claimed that he had filed a complaint before the concerned authority, and the Additional Collector, Aurangabad, conducted an inquiry. However, the court noted that the petitioner suppressed the fact that the inquiry report found no substance in his complaint. The court also observed that the pension was granted to respondent No.5 in 1992, and the petition was filed in 2006, i.e., after 14 years, without any explanation for the delay. The court held that the petitioner suppressed material facts and that the petition suffered from delay and laches. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the pension as he failed to establish any personal interest. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Suppression of Material Facts - Petitioner suppressed the fact that he had earlier filed a complaint and an inquiry was conducted by the Additional Collector, which found no substance - Held that suppression of material facts disentitles the petitioner to any relief (Paras 4-5).
B) Constitutional Law - Delay and Laches - Freedom Fighter Pension - Petition filed after 14 years of grant of pension without any explanation for delay - Held that unexplained delay and laches is fatal to the petition (Para 6).
C) Constitutional Law - Locus Standi - Challenge to Pension - Petitioner failed to establish any personal interest or right in the matter - Held that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the pension of respondent No.5 (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the grant of freedom fighter pension to respondent No.5 on the ground that he is not a genuine freedom fighter, and whether the petition suffers from suppression of material facts and delay.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Suppression of material facts
- Delay and laches
- Locus standi
- Freedom fighter pension
- Inquiry report
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 307
WRIT PETITION NO. 471 OF 2006
A.M. Khanwilkar, S.S. Shinde
Shri S.S. Thombre for Petitioner, Shri Alok Sharma for R.1, Shri K.G. Patil for R.2 & 4, Shri Bhushan Kulkarni for R.3, Shri M.N. Nawandar for R.5
Shri Devidas S/o Vishwanath Chauthmal
Union of India, State of Maharashtra, Chairman Freedom Fighter High Power Committee, Collector Aurangabad, Shri Rangnath S/o Asaram Hiwale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging grant of freedom fighter pension to respondent No.5.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the grant of freedom fighter pension to respondent No.5.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that respondent No.5 is not a genuine freedom fighter and submitted bogus documents.
Previous Decisions
Additional Collector, Aurangabad conducted an inquiry on petitioner's complaint and found no substance; pension was granted to respondent No.5 in 1992.
Issues
Whether the petitioner suppressed material facts regarding the earlier inquiry?
Whether the petition is barred by delay and laches?
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the pension?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondent No.5 is not a genuine freedom fighter and submitted bogus documents.
Respondents argued that the petitioner suppressed the fact that an inquiry was conducted and found no substance, and that the petition is filed after 14 years.
Ratio Decidendi
Suppression of material facts and unexplained delay disentitle a petitioner to discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction. A petitioner must come with clean hands and must not suppress facts. Delay and laches, especially when unexplained, are fatal to the petition.
Judgment Excerpts
The principal grievance which is raised by the petitioner in this petition is that the respondent No.5 is getting the freedom fighter's pension though he is not a genuine freedom fighter and the respondent No.5 submitted bogus documents for getting freedom fighter's pension.
The petitioner has suppressed the fact that the Additional Collector, Aurangabad had conducted an inquiry and submitted a report to the respondent No.3. The report of the inquiry was submitted to the respondent No.3. The petitioner has not placed on record the said report.
The petition is filed in the year 2006. The pension was granted to the respondent No.5 in the year 1992. There is no explanation for the delay of 14 years.
The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the pension of the respondent No.5.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed complaint before concerned authority; Additional Collector conducted inquiry and submitted report; petitioner then filed writ petition in 2006 challenging pension granted in 1992.
