1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO.8398 OF 2006 Kishan s/o.Shetiba Shirdhe deceased - L.R. Smt. Padminbai wd/o. Kishan Shirdhe, age 65 years, occ. nil, R/o. at post Khairgaon, taluka Naigaon (Kh.), District Nanded. - Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chairman, High Power Committee, Freedom Fighters Cell, General Administration Department, 19th Floor, New Administrative Building, Opposite Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.. 3. The Desk Officer, General Administrative Department, Freedom Fighters Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 4. The Collector, Nanded, District Nanded. - - - - Respondents. Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1. Shri Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondents Nos.2 and 4. 2 CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 8th September 2009 ORAL ORDER : [ Per B. R. GAVAI, J. ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 17-12-2002 vide which the application filed by original petitioner for grant of freedom fighters pension came to be rejected. 3. It is the contention of the original petitioner that the petitioner had taken part in Hyderabad Freedom Movement. The application of the petitioner was recommended by District Level Gaurav Committee. However, same is rejected by the State Government. 4. Heard Shri Panpatte, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4. 5. We have perused the original file. From the original file it appears that there is an endorsement of one Desk Officer to the effectthat"though the District Gaurav Committee has recommended 3 case of the petitioner, however, since the District Collector has not given any remarks, the application of the present petitioner should be rejected". From the perusal of the Government Resolution dated 10-3-1999 it is seen that the District Gaurav Committee is required to scrutinize entire evidence prior to recommending case of the applicant for grant of freedom fighters pension. After recommendation from the High Power Committee, the State Government is required to consider the case. Perusal of the file would reveal that there are voluminous documents produced on record by the petitioner including affidavits filed by persons who have been granted freedom fighters pension under the scheme framed by State Government certifying that petitioner had taken part in the freedom fighters movement. There is not even a whisper regarding the said documents in the decision of respondent No.2. It is a settled law that when an authority is required to exercise its discretion, the said discretion has to be exercised by taking into consideration the relevant material. If the authority does not take into consideration the relevant material, the order is liable to be vitiated on the short ground of irrationality. 6. In the present case, though after scrutiny of the documents, the District Gaurav Committee has recommended the case of the 4 petitioner to the respondent No.2 Committee, it has cursorily on the basis of some remarks of one Desk Officer of the State Government rejected the proposal recommended by District Gaurav Committee. Though a voluminous material is placed on record, there is not even a whisper as to why same is not found to be sufficient for considering the recommendations of the District Gaurav Committee. 7. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). The matter is remitted back to the State Government for considering the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and particularly the direction given herein above. The appropriate decision will be taken by respondent No.3 Committee within a period of three months from today. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp839806