1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.6707 Of 2008 Shantabai W/o Bhaginath Gaikwad... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. K.J. Suryawanshi,Advocate for petitioner. Shri. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Shri. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 27th JULY, 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2 2) The petitioner claims freedom fighter's pension. Justice Palkar Commission report is relied upon by the respondents for rejecting the petitioner's claim for freedom fighter pension. Paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of the reply-affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are necessary to be reproduced herein below. “5. I say that, the petitioner relied upon arrest warrant issued against him in file No.201, Outward No.323 dated 14 Ispinder 1357 F i.e. 14.1.1948. In support of his claim for pension, he produced xerox copy of a copy issued by Tahsildar Patoda to Ashruba Bensur. The Enquiry Commission during the course of enquiry, summoned the Collector office, Beed, Tahsildar Patoda, J.M.F.C. Georai and Police Station, Ambejogai for production of record of warrant cases. The Commission has classified 15 warrants received from Tahsildar Patoda through Collector Office, Beed in Annexure-III(A) of the report, 6 warrants received from J.M.F.C. Georai in Annexure- III(B) and 8 warrants received from Police Station, Ambejogai in Annexure-III(C). It further 3 classified 18 warrants in Annexure-IV which were sent for handwriting expert’s opinion and in Annexure-VII 14 warrants displayed showing the original whereof could not be made available. 6. I say that, on perusal of enquiry report, it can be seen that, reasons in general applicable to cases based on arrest warrants are discussed by the Enquiry Commission in part- VIII of the report. Warrant No. 201/57 Outward No.323 is referred at Sr.No.18 in the list of 32 warrant cases referred and relied upon by various freedom fighters. The Enquiry Commission has found that, there is consistency in Outward Nos. given to the warrant cases. It is found that, warrant file No.Nil dated 24 Ispinder, 1357 (24.1.1948) bear outward No. 205. Although the Outward nos. of warrants issued on these dates from 10th 13th January 1948 upto Outward No.204, appears logical, immediately thereafter this warrant in File No.201/57 dated 14.1.1948 bearing Outward No.323. The Enquiry Commission found difference between 205 and 323 is too large and it is improbable that, so many letters would be dispatched in confidential file between 13 Ispinder, 1357 F. to 14 Ispinder 1357 F. [13 and 14 January 1948]. The manner in 4 which the copies of warrants were placed on record in support of claim for Freedom Fighters Pension is found to be objectionable. 7. I say that, so far as the claim of the petitioner based on warrant in File No.201, the Enquiry Commission found that, there is variance in the signature of Tahsildar on the warrant and correspondence as well as it also does not tally with the other warrants received from J.M.F.C. Georai, Ambejogai Police Station. The claim of the petitioner that, Urdu warrant issued by Tahsildar Patoda dated 2 Bahman, 1357 F is received from Police Station, Ambejogai in an application No.638/1990 dated 24-3-1990 and the Outward register from Police Station, Ambejogai is not verified by the Enquiry Commission. The petitioner has not produced original warrant of File No. 7/1357 F, Outward No.407. The Enquiry Commission has also referred this warrant at Sr.No.3 in the list of 32 warrant cases. The Enquiry Commission found that, there are two warrants bearing Outward No.217 and 407, showing date as 2.12.1948. Therefore, it is found improbable that, so many confidential letters, outwarded from that 5 office on the same day, especially because in those days, entire correspondence is in Urdu language and mostly in handwriting. Therefore, the Enquiry Commission found that, the case of the petitioner cannot be believed.” In the light of the reply and the facts of the case we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has failed to make out a case. 3) The writ petition is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.6707.08