(1) wp883-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 883 OF 2011 Ram Sangappa Medewar, R/o Mukkawar Galli, Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department (Freedom Fighters Section), Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. Freedom Fighters' High Power Committee, New Administrative Building, 8th Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, through its Member Secretary. 3. The Desk Officer, General Administration Department, (Freedom Fighters Section), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 4. The Collector, Nanded. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.S. Panpatte, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 4. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 20th AUGUST, 2011 JUDGEMENT (PER : M.T. JOSHI, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and (2) wp883-11 heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner, by the present petition, is challenging the order of the State Government whereby the petitioner's claim for grant of Freedom Fighter's Pension has been rejected. 3. According to the petitioner, he was a `Underground Worker' during the Marathwada Mukti Andolan i.e. struggle for freeing the Marathwada Region from the erstwhile Nizam Government. His case was scrutinized by the District Gaurav Samiti and recommended the same to the State Government for grant of Freedom Fighter's Pension. The State Government under the signature of Desk Officer passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the claim is not corroborated by the proof showing that the petitioner was either required to leave his house, leave the education or was seriously injured in any police assault. In the present case, two of the Freedom Fighters had, however, supported the case of the petitioner by submitting their affidavits alongwith the proposal. (3) wp883-11 4. Mr. V.S. Panpatte, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that this Court has previously found that the supporting affidavits of two Freedom Fighters is sufficient to grant the pension. He relied on "Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar vs. State of Maharashtra and others" 2004 (4) Bom.C.R. 427. In that case, however, as there was certain circumstantial evidence to substantiate the claim of the petitioner therein, on preponderance of material, the order of the Desk Officer was held to be illegal, improper and without jurisdiction. It was also declared that the Desk Officer has no power to sit in appeal over the unanimous decision of the Committee. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in "State of Maharashtra and others v. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar" AIR 2004 S.C. 4264 i.e. the very case which was carried to the Supreme Court by the State. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court by holding that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot relax the criteria fixed by the (4) wp883-11 State Government unless the reasoning given and the findings arrived at by the State Government are perverse or are such that no reasonable man acting reasonably could have arrived at. 6. In the present case, the criteria for grant of Freedom Fighter's Pension has not been fulfilled by the petitioner. In writ jurisdiction, therefore, there cannot be interference in the order passed by the State Government. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/wp883-11