The Supreme Court in the case observed wherein the petition is moved by a 83-year-old retired police man’s for authorities to act on his recommendation for the Gallantry Award.
The court called for the response of the State of Uttar Pradesh’s.
The bench comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Sandeep Mehta in the case was hearing the petitioner-Ram Autar’s challenge to an Allahabad High Court order, which denied the prayer of him on the ground that he had approached belatedly.
Therefore, the petitioner, was recommended for Gallantry award by the Superintendent of Police, Banda on August 3, 1989.
He approached the High Court with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus for action on the recommendation, claiming that he had made representations to the authorities repeatedly in the year 2023.
The High Court in the case observed and did not find any ‘genuine reason’ for the delay exhibited in the matter.
It has also been held by the Supreme Court as well as by this court that if the litigant is not vigilant to his rights and has been sitting back for no justifiable reason, he may not be permitted to invoke equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court while taking note of the petitioner’s age commented that he was “not going to gain anything in service period on account of a police medal” even if awarded at this stage.
The court while considering the petitioner’s “act of bravery in saving the public by killing a dacoit” and the fact that he was recommended for the Gallantry award.
The court in the case observed and has issued the notice.
Accordingly, the court also appointed Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter.
