http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOHAN SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order  dated June  1,1995 made  by the  Punjab & Haryana High Court  in Civil  Writ Petition  No. 3790  of 1994.  The first respondent,  claiming to be a freedom fighter, made on application on  August 1, 1972 for pension under the Freedom Fighters’ Pension  Scheme framed by the Government of India. The  Primary   evidence  in   support  of   his   undergoing imprisonment for  six months has been based on a Certificate of an HLA and co-prisoner. The certificate was considered by the appellant  Government, as per the directions of the High Court in  an earlier writ petition, and it is round that the respondent was  not a  freedom fighter  and, therefore,  not entitled to  the pension under the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme. The respondents again challenged the decision in the present writ  petition. The High Court in the impugned order has held  that in  view of  the  evidence  produced  by  the respondents,  they   must  be   declared  freedom  fighters. Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.      This court  in Mukund  Lal Bhandari & Ors. Vs. Union of India &  Ors. [(1993)  Supp. 3  SCC 2 (para 6)] had held, as regards the sufficiency of the proof, that the scheme itself mentions the  documents which  are required  to be  produced before the  Government. It is not possible for this Court to scrutinize the  documents which according to the petitioners they had  produced in  support of their claim, and pronounce upon their genuineness. It is the function of the Government to do so. We would, therefore, direct accordingly.      It is  seen  that  the  High  Court  had  directed  the Government, in  the earlier writ petition, and in compliance thereof the Government of India had considered the documents relied upon  by the  respondents and came to the conclusion, as a  fact, that  these  documents  are  not  sufficient  to conclude that the respondents had suffered imprisonment. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

High Court  found it,  on appreciation  of evidence,  to  be sufficient, which the High Court cannot embark upon.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court  stands  set  aside.  The  writ  petition  stands dismissed but under the circumstances without costs.