(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1649 OF 2000 Basvantrao s/o. Shivram Patil, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Almala, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Collector, Latur, District : Latur. 3. The Government of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of Maharashtra (Freedom Fighter Division, Mantralaya, Bombay - 32). .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. M.L. Dharashive, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, Special Counsel, for respondent no.3. (2) ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays for giving him the benefit of freedom fighters' scheme, on the ground that he has participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement. 2. The petitioner also challenges the order passed by the respondent, dated 15th November 1999, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for freedom fighter's pension. 3. Mr. V.B. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had completed the requisite formalities. He submits that the affidavits of two persons, who had participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and who have been given the pension under the scheme framed by the State Government, and also the Central Government, have been filed on record. He further submits that the petitioner has also produced certificate by the prison authorities at Gulbarga, which would show that the petitioner was a political prisoner (3) and, in fact, taken in custody on 14-12-1357 Fasli. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner has submitted all the relevant documents in support of his claim. 4. Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, learned Special Counsel, appearing for respondent no.3, on the contrary, submits that the petitioner has failed to submit any documentary proof so as to satisfy the conditions laid down in the Government Resolution. He submits that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was convicted and had undergone the sentence for a period of 3 months. He submits that merely because the petitioner was in prison for 4 - 5 days, cannot entitle the petitioner for benefit under the scheme. He further submits that the District Gaurav Samiti has also not recommended the case of the petitioner. 5. We have perused the original file. One Shri Narsing Jyotiba Bhosle has filed an affidavit, stating therein that he had participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement in an underground camp, under the leadership of Shri Annarao Patil. He has stated that under the leadership of Shri Annarao Patil, Shri Govind Pawar and Shri Shahurao Jadhav, they had taken part in lifting the arms from the Police Station and set the Police Station on fire. He has also stated that they had taken part in general Satyagrah. He has further stated that he had also (4) participated in the attack on Karodgiri Naka and Razakar Camp. He has stated that the petitioner had also actively participated in the said activity. 6. The petitioner had also filed on record, affidavit of one Shri Maniksing Chavan, who is recipient of freedom fighter's pension under the scheme framed by the Central Government, as well as, the State Government. The said Shri Maniksing Chavan has also specifically stated in the affidavit, that the petitioner had actively participated in the various activities conducted by the underground freedom fighters under the leadership of Shri Annarao Patil. The petitioner also, in his affidavit, has given the details of the activities rendered by him in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement. It can further be seen from the certificate issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Gulbarga, that the petitioner was, in fact, taken in custody and imprisoned on 14-12-1357 Fasli. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner was a convicted political prisoner. A communication to the similar effect has been addressed by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Gulbarga, to the District Magistrate, Latur. In the totality of the circumstances, participation of the petitioner in the freedom movement, cannot be disputed. 7. The release of the petitioner from the prison, within 4 - 5 days, was not on account of his own volition. It is nobody's (5) case, that the petitioner had sought for pardon and he was released. It appears that since the State of Hyderabad was liberated on 17th September 1948, all the political prisoners were released. It can, thus, be seen, that had the liberation of Hyderabad been postponed, the petitioner would have undergone the complete sentence of imprisonment. Not only this, but there is nothing to doubt the affidavits of the two freedom fighters, namely, Shri Narsing Jyotiba Bhosle and Shri Maniksing Chavan, which certify participation of the petitioner in the freedom movement. 8. In so far as the recommendation of the District Gaurav Samiti is concerned, from the proceedings, we find that the District Gaurav Samiti had considered the proposal of six persons simultaneously and without considering the case of each of the applicants, had by a common reasoning, not recommended the case of the six persons. We find that when there is sufficient material to establish participation of the petitioner in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement, on a hypertechnical ground, he should not be denied his claim. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay freedom fighter's (6) pension to the petitioner, under the scheme framed by the State Government, with effect from the date of his application. The arrears of pension, from the date of his application till the actual payment, shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from today. 10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, parties shall bear their own costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1649