WP 9169/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9169/2010 _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri G.R. Ingole Patil, AGP for respondent no.4. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. Date: 10.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.12.2008 issued by respondent no.2. By this order, the petitioner’s claim for underground freedom WP 9169/10 2 fighter pension has been turned down. From perusal of the order, it appears that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions prescribed by the Government resolution dated 4.7.1995, for seeking pension as underground freedom fighter. The conditions prescribed by this Government resolution are three. Firstly, the applicant has to prove that he had to leave his house in the freedom movement; secondly, he was required to leave education or he was removed from the school, and thirdly, he was assaulted by the Police in which he suffered physical disability. There is no dispute that all the three conditions require to be complied with for seeking underground freedom fighter pension. Shri V.S. Panpatte, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited our attention to the inquiry report (Exh.P to the petition) submitted to the Tahsildar and to other material placed on record to contend that the petitioner is entitled for pension as prayed. WP 9169/10 3 We have perused the impugned order as well as the inquiry report dated 28.9.2002. It appears that the petitioner complies only one condition i.e. he was required to leave his house since he was working underground with other freedom fighters. Insofar as the remaining two conditions are concerned, it is clear that the petitioner has not produced any material either before the concerned authorities or even before this Court to show that he fulfills these two conditions also. Moreover, the petitioner has also not produced a single newspaper cutting showing his name as an underground freedom fighter. For all these reasons, his claim has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through several documents annexed to the writ petition to contend that the petitioner fulfills the criteria fixed by the Government resolution dated 4.7.1995. However, he could not point out a single document in support of his claim that he complies with the WP 9169/10 4 remaining two conditions/criterion, namely, he had to leave education or he was removed from the school, and that he suffered physical disability. When we asked him to show the proof of having complied with these two conditions, he submitted that the petitioner was illiterate and, therefore, question of showing any proof that he had to leave the school or he was removed from the school, does not arise. He then submitted that all throughout the petitioner was underground and, therefore, he had no occasion to suffer any disability. In other words, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria fixed by the Government. Insofar as the condition that he had to leave the school is concerned, from the inquiry report, it appears that the petitioner was in a private school and he could not produce any material in support of his claim. This report falsifies the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner WP 9169/10 5 was illiterate and he never attended any school. It is against this backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to rely upon certain judgments in support of his contentions. The judgments, in our opinion, were of no avail to the petitioner, in view of the peculiar facts of this case. When we asked him whether he has any judgment wherein pension has been granted even though the criteria fixed by the Government is not complied by the applicant or that even if the applicant did not fulfill all the three conditions, the Court or the concerned authority has powers to relax any condition, he could not lay his hand on any such judgment. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & others V/s Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar (AIR 2004 SC, 4264) has made it clear that criteria fixed by the Government for giving freedom fighter’s pension cannot be relaxed by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme WP 9169/10 6 Court has further observed that the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot enter into re-appreciation of evidence and reverse the findings arrived at by the State Government, unless they be perverse or be such as no reasonable man acting reasonably could have arrived at. The findings recorded in the present case, in any case, cannot be termed as perverse. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the writ petition. The petition is dismissed. (A.V. Nirgude, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 10.03.2011 ndk/c103113