(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1766 OF 1999 Raghunathrao s/o. Sheshrao Kulkarni (Supekar), Age : Major, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Rachna Nagar, India Bank Colony, Karegaon Road, Parbhani, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Chairman, Freedom Fighters' High Power Committee, 19th Floor, New Administrative Building, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Collector, Parbhani, District : Parbhani. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.M. Dabir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent no.2. (2) ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. Vide the present Writ Petition, the petitioner claims grant of freedom fighter's pension from the date of application till realization. 2. The petitioner has applied for grant of freedom fighter's pension to the respondents, on the ground that in the year 1946-47, he had taken part in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and he had to go underground and sustain sufferings. 3. The petitioner has annexed copies of affidavits of some freedom fighters, so also, certificate of Police Patil, to contend that during the relevant period, his house was burnt and that he had to stay at Nanded. 4. The respondents contend that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence or proof to show that he had to abandon his studies or that he had been disabled because of the beating by the Police. It is further contended on behalf of (3) the respondents, that the petitioner had neither submitted any report of the Police, nor has produced any evidence to show that he was declared as absconding. 5. The documents produced by the petitioner nowhere substantiate the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner, at the relevant time i.e. 1946-47, was aged about 13 / 14 years. The certificate shows that he was staying at Nanded and that he was receiving aid. As no documents have been produced to substantiate the requirements, as laid down in the Government Resolutions, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondents. 6. In the light of the above, that the claim of the petitioner does not satisfy the test, as laid down by the respondents, for grant of freedom fighter's pension, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1766