1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.825 OF 2010 Kaushalyabai w/o Karbhari Bangar, Age 77 years, Occu. Household, R/o Bhayala (Karanjwan), Tq. Patoda, District Beed ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed, District Beed 2. District Collector, Beed, District Beed 3. Freedom Fighters High Power Committee, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32, Through its Secretary 4. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, (Freedom Fighter Section), Mantralaya, Mumbai ..RESPONDENTS Mr A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents no.1, 2 & 4; Respondent no.3 served. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 28th June, 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition, by a Freedom Fighter who claims pension from the Central Government, takes exception to an order dated 31.3.2009 issued by the respondents declining to forward the proposal of the petitioner to the Central Government on account of failure of the petitioner to provide the necessary documents within the time provided by the respondents. 3. Mr A. N. Nagargoje, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the documents which have been asked for by the respondents are not germane for deciding the case of the petitioner. This Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction is not an appellate authority who can scrutinize the request made by the respondents for providing copies of certain documents. It is for the petitioner to satisfy the respondents as to whether the documents are germane or not. Suffice it to state that the respondents had called upon the petitioner to submit certain documents but the petitioner had failed to do so. This resulted in the dismissal of his proposal. 3 4. Mr Nagargoje, learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is now in a position to provide copies of some of the documents asked for and would tender explanation as to why the other documents are not germane for deciding the case of the petitioner. In the light of that statement, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order, giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit certain documents and give explanation as to why the other documents are not germane. 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, this writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 31.3.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner is granted liberty to submit documents as well as her explanation in respect of the relevance of the other documents. This be done by the petitioner within four weeks from today. We further direct the respondents to decide the proposal of the petitioner on merits as well as her explanation, in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the receipt of the documents and explanation from the petitioner. 4 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp825.10