1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4388 OF 2009 Date of decision:3.12.2009 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH H. PATIL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. U. CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/wp4388-09 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4388 OF 2009 1. Amarchand Kisandas Meher, Age: 88 years, Occ: Nil, r/o. Ashti, Taluka:Ashti, District Beed, At present: Anand Nagar, Ashok Complex, Station Road, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary-General Administration Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 2. The Chairman, High Power Committee - Freedom Fighter Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 3. The District Collector, Beed, Dist. Beed. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.P.Brahme, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.Kulkarni, Adv., for respondent no.2. Mrs. R.K.Ladda, A.G.P., for respondent State. ... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 3.12.2009 *** 3 JUDGMENT: (Per K.U.Chandiwal, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner asserts to have participated in Quit India Movement and also the Liberation of Hyderabad Movement ( Hyderabad Mukti Sangram) as an underground volunteer. Since the petitioner is deprived of recognition, to the benefits of freedom fighter, he moved the authorities. It was rejected on 28.7.1997. Even thereafter, he made representations but he could not get any success. Hence, the writ petition. 3. We have gone through the letter dt. 28.7.1997 ( page No.25 to the paper book). The officials could not process the application for want of necessary documentation as were listed by letter dt.28th July, 1997. Since it was rejected by subsequent communication dt. 26.9.2002, the same was reiterated by the Collector, Ahmednagar. We do not see any arbitrariness in the action of the competent authorities, in rejecting the application. 4 The Writ Petition lacks merit. It is dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H.PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE agp/wp4388-09