Smt Sheshubai Yaligar vs Abdul Rehaman on 3 June, 2009

Q3/ 

CCC P~Ec>.2€}(}4 of 2{}{)9

114' THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA;*fi; " %
CIRCUIT BEING}-I AT  V   '  T 1 L
DATED THIS THE 3%  
PREsEN':*'   " % "  2

THE HOIPBLE 
THE I~1ON'BLI.§ 

 §,_§;;C.';C_4_NQ.*2;€§O4f§i(30.€?'1«iiivfl}

BETWEEIE; 

Smt. sheshuba:.;'a%g1;ga1vT,i%~
W / :3 late: Narayan~-.Y31ig:ai; '"
Aged abcut 80 yeaI*:5_," 

R/ C: 'Uriakeri,-.  "Bai1h0I3.ga1,

 -  Di'$§:t $_¢':ig;§m.m."  %%%%% -4 » ...COMPL.AJNAN'}'

 '  Dharigenci, Acivocate)

1.  Rehaman,

 .. ,Th€'--State cf Kagmataka,

_ 'By its Unéer Secretary,
 @331; of D.P.A.R. {political Pension)
M.S.BuiidiI1g,
Ba;:1ga}0re~ L



CCC N0.2{)04 of 2009

2. Dr. J.Rav:isha11kar,
The Deputy Commissioner,
Bdgatfim District,  '   % T. _ * * 
Belgaum. '~""'.~..,'EVfiCC;USE@ ~ 

(By Sri. K.E3.Adhyapak, Add}. Gc}3:eI1:zi;%:I;i't_$4£iif;-}4'  5 ' ~ 7

This CCC is filed unfier ""SecT,im:1 171«,a11d 12 of tha
Contempt of Court zfigtt, prayitig "t-r1 under the State Goverrzment

  W113 had been so granted {ha pension, on

  'of complainant being satisfiad, by the

Géfiiemmcrzi and having been gven such pension as per

   sréér datefi 20.05.1992. The pensien, thmzgh was

  'fialzied 0:} 20.95. 3992, was with effect fmm 22.11.1930

'  "at £113 rates that prevailed at the reievant point sf tinge.

M"-

V



CCC No.20E)4 of2€}09

2. It appears that the State Government":
the entire scenario of gafltiiilg freedom  
and having found that there  '
the claims made by the    L»
fighters, the Government  'to'. 1*e*.?§i<§'+;?é,*:.V:i:1e é';EeViVtVr,V1,:'LatioI:V
and had issued notiees_    freedom
fightefis pension to   the authority
and to protiltgee  or version.

   _'    had appeared
before-the" of the district and had

asserted "  pension and had further

 . é_ izifiieated §t1af"a§l.t.hevsupporth1g documents had already

 'bee:1  However, the Deputy Commissioner

appears' '::of_ have recemmended to the Govemmefii for

 eaneeflefien of pension to the eemplaizzant. The

Ail" fkfiemment cancelled the pension after such

 fecommendation as per the order dated G1,O4.20O().

'4 Afier the complainant's efforts to seek restoration of

x;/



see 310.2004 M2009
the complainant to attend 1.:I'15€:€§I}q1}.iI'}7 personally, which
the complainant attended on 16.09.2008 
Deputy Secretary, Department of  
Administrative Reforme, and gave her "
thereafter, the orders having 11:
considerable length of time   
without pension, pre.seI1te;1o.-t-3E1ie'v-(::on}:eoti1§t-ipetiiiion, and
notice had been issueoé' petition to the

respo;1de11ts.Vo2:i 0.3.O{};éC(}§3.   3 ~  '

 * The    have filed their courlter

affidavitu bei'ore' ms elem on 29.o5.2oo9, and it is

    the affidavit, that the Case of the

  vcoinpiajfieifihad been re««examir1ed as per the direction

.o:"' ihis_  but due to adn1inistrative reasons, the

 o;'der o(:I.21d not be passed promptly" and that the order

"ii  to be passed on i22.05,2€}()9, copy of which is

"  grodueed as Annexurefii to the afiiéavit, rejecting the

claim for the freedom fightefs pension by the



CZCC NOQQG4 of 2009

complainant for the reason that the statementfl
the complainant before the Deputy   
effect that she had undergone  inen£h's  '
whereas the certificate issued   e
indicated that she was a   from'
14.12.1942 to 23.e3v,n ;9_43  mm than
three months and  to suspicion,
the aumorigifiei"e:n:.'§m\e--_lFi earlier action of
caneeflafiee   ehe complainant and

the  eension stands rejected.

8.   learned counsel appearing

 '_ feIj~'£he_:con1piei1"1e.{11:.submits that the order passed is

 *ne':..Va--v,_Vbo':1a""fide order; that no order was passed

  Government after the Begmty Secretary

 heafii. ehehvnzatier and recorded the statement; that the

V' *ee§'f;%_fieate ané the statement both did eenfirm that the

 eemplainant had undergone imprisonment in

'4 Connection with the freedom struggle; that there is,



CCC N02064: of 2009

absoluteiy, no justification in passing the orgieiiiiie
order is passed only after the notice   it 
contempt jurisdiction just to 
for compliance and that the or(ier»:iei.noti.,éi.flier' 
fide exercise of power or a  erxdeixi   Vi  S 'V

9. Shri .coufisé§é.ppearmg
for the aceu§ed«re$'pQ:1*iifiei:i_te;iL   other hand,
submits   '--.---i-gave obeyed the

direetiens ,is£:}.1J€i':d 13}:   and therefore, there is

no fuiihef  jurisdiction and that the

quality f޴1eVer:ier"e;%i2n0t be examined in contempt

   iiiii 

   :V""}ff1ei;gI1 we are irzclineci to accept fihe

.js?._i:i?3€:x;is;s;iei; ef the learned Gevemment Advocate that it

 is netffery appropriate fax' us :0 examine the quaiity 91'

"ii  order passed by an autherzity in contempt

   jurisdiction, anti the quesfion is conflned as to whether

ciireetiorz of this Court has been eemplied or not, we



CCC NO,20{)4 of 2009

must exyress our consiéexable 
disapproval of the manner in V' 
Government functions in the  . c$'f 
ciaims for grant of freedom fiérlf%f'g  

manner of disposa} of those' ';€t§:§;}E:lica.ti(51:?5§"'T 

13.. In £1118 veI;y"' satisfied at
ail that the Qtgigzr,   to the
courzter     fide one. We
say so for  p.oi}1ted out by the learned
caunsfl my  it is not oniy passed in a

haste erflyf. fméixgmg of the notice in contempt:

 . é_  but  «respondents appear to be searching for

‘ :§t:e%% flim4Sy:V’gf€:3.1nd or the other to reject the claim rather

{<3 a{i§2_€£f1Vée the object eff 1:133 scheme and 1:23 acccrd

g_ f£gh*;.er's pension to a freedam fighter in an

A ~ If " héiiourabie marmer.

12. We find it is more disgacefu} to harass and

hzzmiliaté the fmedom fighters in this mazmer than

CCC NOQOO4 of 2909

conferring on them any ‘samman’ or giving them ‘s$i:sife:1ance.

13. A lady cf 80 years aggf,
imprisonment more than 50 years:’»,bar;k«,
remember the precise durati03″i, 0§ age
and in her condition, thgugh many elderly
people to have sharp ‘4 ..

14. The as to whether the
pension can material and I10{ as to
whether ” Vémnly defeats the object of the

scheme. “the complainant and the C€1’tifiz1xc-:rTc1id confirm with the factum 0f having

in this state of affairs, the Crovemment

sfifigflé. restored the pensien but that is 1101; the

V aréeri.

Be that as it may. As observéd, aariier in this order, it

V. –. 1′:i1ay not be proper to €X£1II1iI1€ the correctness or otherwise of the-:

‘ ~. Ezrrdar in ccmtempi: jurisdiction.

CC-C N02004 of 2009
: 10 :

16. While iibefty ie reserved to to

independently question the Va1idit_y~-sf et-he :§rdef’;e~Twe”e§{presS

dismay about the way the {}e1ie1′: im..e£;t”

paxficxfiariy, in the matter of of fI’f3§3(§Qfi§_: figfitere’ pefieion,
and the least we eat: do,i’s.__t:o cei:ipe:;eé:.t.e t11e«e’om15iainant for the
considerable harassment ~e ufi’ered by her because

of these proceedi13’g§$V.’Vj’~

_ {he petition, we impese coat of
Rs. 10,000 on -‘:20 he paid te the eotnpiainant

within four wee,%1<sf:4e;:: If the Cost is not paid within the

5;-fipulateifi Vvtime, _<;9;:.=.p}a.i:1eI1t can move for revival ef the

ed-nteii1'pt pet§ti'::{1:i;»

Sd/~
JUDGE

Sd/~
JUDGE

L n "I<I.i1'1s*