Back
2026 Supreme(Chh) 26
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, C.J., Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Ramgulam Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Gangu Singh Thakur - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary General Administration Department - Respondent
WA No. 752 of 2024
Decided On : 16-03-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General
Eligibility for benefits under the Rules is determined by a constituted committee, and a party must directly challenge such decisions to seek judicial review.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 - Section 3 - Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan (MISA/DIR Rajnaitik Ya Samajik Karno Se Niruddha Vyakti) Samman Nidhi Niyam, 2008 - Denial of financial assistance - Writ petition dismissed on grounds of criminal antecedents - Appellant sought benefit of Samman Nidhi, claiming detention for political reasons during Emergency, while allegedly having multiple criminal records - Court noted that eligibility for benefits under the Rules is based on the decision of a constituted committee, and the appellant failed to independently challenge its rulings. (Paras 9-24)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a socio-political worker, participated in anti-government movements and was detained during the Emergency under MISA. His application for Samman Nidhi was rejected due to his criminal background, which he contested.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the decision of the committee regarding the appellant's ineligibility for benefits under Rules was supported by evidence of criminal records and thus lawful.
Issues: The key issues were the appellant's eligibility for Samman Nidhi against allegations of prior criminal activities and the interpretation of the relevant rules regarding detainee benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the committee's decision on benefit eligibility must be respected; without a direct challenge to its authority, the court would not intervene. The inclusion of contested terms in the Rules was not sufficient to invalidate the ruling.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of appellant's claim for samman nidhi. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments against eligibility criteria for samman nidhi. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. state's defense of the rejection of appellant's claim. (Para 13 , 19) |
| 4. court's evaluation of the evidence and eligibility criteria. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. court's stance on the ultra vires argument. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 6. final dismissal of the writ appeal. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.1046/2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed.
3. In the present writ appeal, the appellant has sought setting aside of the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No.1046/2015 and has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to release the Samman Nidhi to the petitioner from the same date on which it was extended to other beneficiaries, along with interest @ 12% per annum till the date of actual payment; and in the alternative, to declare the expression “Rajnaitik ya Samajik Karno Se Niruddha Byakti” as ultra vires in the interest of justice.
4. The brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge were that the appellant/writ petitioner claims himself to be a socio- political worker who was actively involved in various public movements. At the relevant time, he was a student of Government Hemraj Laxmichand Arts & Commerce College, Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, and had also been elected as the President of the Student Union of the said college. It was stated that in the year 1975, during a Kisan Movement organized against the levy policy of the State Government, the appellant/writ petitioner participated in the said agitation and was arrested along with several leaders of the area.
5. Thereafter, upon the declaration of Emergency by the Central Government on 25.06.1975, several social workers, political leaders, trade union leaders and student leaders were detained, and in that connection the appellant/writ petitioner was also arrested and lodged in Central Jail, Raipur along with other social and political workers from the Chhattisgarh region.
6. It was further case of the appellant/writ petitioner that he remained under detention from 31.08.1975 to 10.01.1977. Subsequently, the State Government framed the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan (MISA/D.I.R. Rajnaitik Ya Samajik Karno Se Niruddha Vyakti) Samman Nidhi Niyam, 2008, notified on 05.08.2008, for providing financial assistance to those social and political persons of the Chhattisgarh region who were detained under the provisions of MISA/DIR during the period from 25.06.1975 to 31.03.1977. Claiming entitlement under the said Rules, the appellant/writ petitioner submitted an application dated 24.03.2009 before respondent No.2 – Collector, Raipur seeking grant of Samman Nidhi. However, the said application came to be rejected by the Collector vide communication dated 22.05.2010 on the basis of a report of the Superintendent of Police, Raipur dated 09.12.2009 indicating that several criminal cases were registered against the appellant/writ petitioner, and therefore he was not entitled to the benefit of the Samman Nidhi under Rule 6 of the Notification dated 05.08.2008.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government challenging the communication dated 22.05.2010, but the same was also rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred the writ petition bearing WPC No.1046/2015 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2024.
8. Calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 30.08.2024, the appella
