1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5208/2008 Damodar Shivram Thakur (Nikam) .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri S.B.Rohile,Adv.for petitioner. Shri N.N.Jadhav,AGP for Respondents .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & R.K.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 30/06/2009 ORAL ORDER : This petition at the behest of Freedom Fighter takes exception to an order passed by the respondents dated 8/10/08 rejecting the application submitted by petitioner claiming Freedom Fighters pension. 2. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition in this Court and sought direction to the respondents for deciding his application. Thereafter, as the matter was not decided, Contempt 2 Petition also came to be filed and in the Contempt Petition, statement came to be made that certain communication had been issued to the petitioner calling for certain documents and as the documents had not been submitted by the petitioner, the claim remained pending. It appears that subsequently, the impugned order came to be issued thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was served with several letters calling upon the petitioner to submit documents as per the requirement in the Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995. According to the petitioner he had complied with the said requirement and had submitted certain documents. The respondents ultimately rejected application of the petitioner on the ground that the requirement of the Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995 in respect of the submission of the documents had not been fulfilled by the petitioner. At para 4 of the affidavit in reply, it is further stated that the petitioner had submitted affidavit of one Badrinarayan Ramnarayan Lohia but the affidavit of Shri Lohia does not clearly establish the role or the capacity in which the petitioner had worked as a Freedom Fighter. 4. Shri Rohile, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before 3 us that no doubt the petitioner has not been able to submit documents as per the requirement of Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995, but had submitted certain other documents which would prove the fact that the petitioner had undergone the imprisonment in the freedom struggle. It is also urged before us that the respondents ought not to have taken such a hyper technical view and ought to have granted application of the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh V/s Union of India and others 2001 AIR SCW 3843. According to us, the ratio laid down in the said judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. This is a case where the documents from a foreign country were sought for on the ground that the Freedom Fighter therein belonged to the Indian National Army. The facts of the reported case and the facts of the present case being different, the ratio would not be applicable to the present case. 5. In the present case, undisputedly the requirement of the Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995 in regard to submission of the documents has not been complied with by the petitioner. In the absence of the requisite documents being submitted, the application of the petitioner, according to us has been rightly rejected. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not notice any perversity in the reasonings or in the appreciation of documents by the respondents 4 to warrant any interference in the exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 6. This petition being sans merit, is therefore, summarily dismissed with order as to costs. [R.K.DESHPANDE] [P.V.HARDAS] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp5208-09