The term 'Qaid' in Rule 2(teen) of the Swantantrata Sangram Samman Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1972, includes arrest, and a person who has been detained for more than 45 days under the Defence of India Rules, 1939, is entitled to the Samman Nidhi.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. The petitioner claiming to be a freedomfighter submitted an application for grant of Freedomfighter Samman Nidhi to the State Government in the General Administration Department in the year 1972 in the prescribed proforma as stipulated under the Swantantrata Sangram Samman Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'). The application was forwarded for scrutiny and verification to the Collector, Jabalpur who conducted an enquiry and recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of the Samman Nidhi. The State Government vide Annexure-A dated 20-6-1973 allowed the application and the petitioner was paid the Samman Nidhi regularly up to 12-6-1979. But, thereafter, all of a sudden the said payment was stopped.

2. It is averred in the writ petition that before stopping such payment the petitioner was not issued any notice to show cause nor was he ever afforded an opportunity of being heard. On enquiry the petitioner was orally informed that the Samman Nidhi which was conferred on him earlier, was withdrawn as he was released on bail from Central Jail, Jabalpur on furnishing surety. The petitioner, as putforth in the writ petition, submitted series of representations but the same were not dealt with by the State Government. Being unable to tolerate the sphinx like silence of the respondents the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 1995 for mitigating his grievances. According to the petitioner he had remained in the Central Jail, Jabalpur from 5-3-1943 to 19-4-1943 for more than 45 days under Rule 39 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939 along with other prisoners and his name has been mentioned at serial No. 33/92 in the Freedomfighters Register kept in the Collectorate Jabalpur and there is no justification to withdraw the allowance.

3. A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has approached this Court after a considerable length of time. It is also pleaded that the petitioner was not kept in custody on the basis of any conviction but was detained as 'hawalati' prisoner. It is also stated that as the petitioner had availed the concession of bail he is not entitled to the Samman Nidhi. It is also setforth that the State Level Advisory Board has issued instructions that the persons who had not suffered imprisonment being convicted would not be entitled to such Samman Nidhi.

4. I have heard Mr. M.L. Chansoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. K. Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the State. Mr. Chansoriya has submitted that the petitioner, who had fought for this country in his youth, had immense faith and trust in the administration that his case would be looked into and his grievances would be mitigated and with the aforesaid unflinching faith and trust embedded, made representations to the State authorities but when his patience reached the zenith and he was unable to live with basic human dignity he approached this Court as a last resort. It is settled in law that a litigant who does not agitate his grievances well in time a writ petition at his instance is ordinarily not to be entertained and his visit has to be stopped at the very threshold. However, the present case stands in a different footing altogether. The concept of Samman Nidhi is a recognition, a recognition by the independent India to the freedomfighters who fought selflessly against the British Government. If the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under law, I am of the considered view, his right should not be curbed or curtailed because of delayed approach. In this context I may profitably refer to the observations by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and others vs. Union of India and others, JT 1993(3) SC 342:

7. As regards the contention that the petitioners had filed their applications after the date prescribed in that behalf, we are afraid that the Government stand is not justif