1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5327 OF 1998. Daulatrao Sukhlal Patil, Age 56 years, Occ.Nil, R/o Laxmiwadi, Tq. Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The District Collector, Ahmednagar. 2. The Desk Officer, Freedom Fighter Cell, General Administration Department Mantralaya, Bombay-400 032. 3. The State of Maharashtra, ... Respondents. ... Mr.Prakashsing B.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Bhushan Kulkarni, advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Additional Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 23.06.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. The petitioner impugns the decision of the State Government dated 4th September, 1997 thereby rejecting the claim of the present petitioner for pension under Goa Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had undertaken part in the Goa Liberation Movement and was working as an underground Freedom Fighter. According to the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner has been duly recommended by the District Gaurav Committee and Collector and despite of the same it has been rejected by the State Government. 3. Mr.Patil, learned counsel submits that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in case of "Tukaram Ramji Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 735, since the claim of the petitioner has been recommended by the District Gaurav Samiti, the State Government was bound to grant pension to the petitioner. 3 4. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Committee submits that as a matter of fact, the District Gaurav Samiti has recommended that pension should not be granted to the petitioner since the material submitted by the petitioner in respect of his claim was not sufficient. 5. We have perused the original file. Perusal of the original file reveals that the District Gaurav Committee has unanimously decided not to recommend the case of the petitioner. It has been found that the affidavits relied on by the petitioner were by the same persons who had given such affidavits in support of various persons in Ahmednagar District. The scope of interference in writ jurisdiction is very limited. Unless it is found that the decision taken by the authorities is based on irrelevant material or it has failed to take into consideration the relevant material or is irrational or arbitrary, it will not be permissible for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the authority. 4 6. Perusal of the file reveals that decision has been taken after taking into consideration all the relevant material. In so far as reliance placed by the petitioner of the judgment of the Supreme Court is concerned in the said judgment, the Full Bench held that the provisions of Government Resolution of 1995, would not apply to such cases wherein District Gaurav Committee and Collector have already recommended for grant of pension. However, in the facts of the present case, we find that the case of the petitioner has not been recommended for not grant of pension. In that view of the matter reliance on the said judgment in our view is fully misplaced. In that view of the matter, no error is found with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp532798 5