1 W.P.No.1601.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1601 OF 2010 Hausabai Dada Kakade, Age 83 years,Occup. Nil R/o Kinhi,Tq. Ashti District Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The District Collector, Beed,District Beed. Copies of respondents are served on office of Government Pleader,High Court of Judicature at Bombay,Bench At Aurangabad ) ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.P.V.Barde,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.Bhushan Kulkarni,Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri.V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent-State. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. RESDERVED: 17TH JUNE, 2010. PRONOUNCED 23RD JUNE, 2010. JUDGEMENT :( PER K.K.TATED, J. ) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the 2 W.P.No.1601.10 consent of the respective learned counsel of the parties, the present petition is heard and finally disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging order dated 13th May,2008, passed by the respondents, by which the petitioner’s husband’s application for granting pension under Freedom Fighters Pension scheme 1972, is rejected. 3. It is case of the petitioner that, her husband and brother-in-law had actively participated in the freedom fighter’s struggle against Nizam. The brother in law of the petitioner, namely Bapuji Tolaji Kakade has already been awarded Freedom Fighter’s Pension. Even the husband of the petitioner had applied for grant of freedom fighters pension, however, during the pendency of his claim, he expired on 27.11.2003. Being the widow and legal representative and sole survivor 3 W.P.No.1601.10 of deceased Dada Kakde, the petitioner had filed an application for grant of freedom fighter pension. 4. The application filed by the petitioner remained unattended for considerable longtime and hence the petitioner had filed writ petition No. 2028 of 2005 in this court. This Court by order dated 27th April,2007 had directed the respondent to decide the application of the petitioner within eight weeks. 5. Pursuant to the said order by this court in Writ Petition No. 2028 of 2005, respondent decided the petitioner’s application against her for grant of pension holding that the petitioner failed to produce the relevant documents to show that her husband participated in freedom struggle against Nizam. 6. It is case of the petitioner that, she is a senior citizen and 83 years old lady, can not move 4 W.P.No.1601.10 without help of someone. The petitioner states that because of old age and financial difficulties, it remained on her part to submit all the documents with the authority for deciding her claim. For want of relevant documents the respondents by impugned order rejected the petitioner's application for Freedom Fighter’s Pension. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, they called upon the petitioner to produce certain documents such as:- 1) Evidence to demonstrate the suffering caused because of participation in freedom fighter struggle. A] Had to leave the house B] Had to leave the education or education institution removed him. C] Because of police atrocities disability caused alongwith other documents. As petitioner failed and neglected to submit 5 W.P.No.1601.10 the relevant documents to show that her husband participated in freedom movement against Nizam, her application was rightly rejected by the Authority. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that now the documents, which are required for grant of Freedom Fighter’s Pension, are available with the petitioner and the petitioner is ready to submit the same before the respondents. Those documents are annexed and marked as Annexure “C” Collectively to this petition. 9. We have gone through the documents annexed by the petitioner to this petition. When we called upon the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 to make his submissions on these new documents, he fairly states that these documents can be verified by the concerned officer only. Therefore, if matter is remanded back to the concerned Officer, he can go through the same 6 W.P.No.1601.10 and will decide the petitioner’s application. It is correct that, it is not possible to verify the genuineness and/or correctness of these documents in the present writ petition. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct the concerned authority to consider the petitioner’s additional documents and decide her application as early as possible. 10. In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Authority dated 13th May, 2008 is set aside. 11. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Authority for deciding petitioner’s application for Pension considering additional documents. 12. Liberty granted to the petitioner to submit her additional documents with the authority, through Collector, Beed, within one month from the receipt of the order of this Court. 7 W.P.No.1601.10 13. We expect that the Authority will decide the petitioner’s application as early as possible, in any case, within six months from the receipt of all documents either from the petitioner and/or from the Collector, Beed. 14. Rule made absolute in the above terms. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK