1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 471 OF 2006. Shri Devidas S/o Vishwanath Chauthmal, Age 35 years, Occu. Business, R/o Bidkin, Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Union of India, through its Secretary, General Administration, New Delhi. 2) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary General Administration Department, (Freedom Fighter Section) Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3) The Chairman Freedom Fighter, High Power Committee, 19th floor, New Administrative Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4) The Collector, Aurangabad. 5) Shri Rangnath S/o Asaram Hiwale, Age 73 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Bidkin, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangbad. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Alok Sharma, Standing counsel for R.No.1. Shri K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.2 & 4. Shri Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for R.No.3. Shri M.N. Nawandar, Advocate for R.No.5. ... 2 CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 15th JANUARY, 2010. JUDGMENT: (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 1. Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Rule, Returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the parties. 3. The principal grievance which is raised by the petitioner in this petition is that the respondent No.5 is getting the freedom fighter’s pension though he is not a genuine freedom fighter and the respondent No.5 submitted bogus documents for getting freedom fighter’s pension. The petitioner, therefore, filed complaint against the respondent No.5 before the concerned authority, on the basis of which, the concerned authority i.e. the Additional Collector, Aurangabad had conducted an inquiry. The report of the inquiry was submitted to the respondent 3 No.2. The respondents No.1 and 4, vide their letters dated 11-08-2005 and 23-09-2005, respectively, informed to the petitioner that the respondent No.5 is getting the pension from 1982 and the complaint lodged by the petitioner is due to personal enmity and no sufficient documents were received so as to stop the pension, and that no further action is necessary in regard to the said complaint. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad has inquired into the complaint filed by the petitioner and informed the petitioner that the Collector, Aurangabad has submitted a report stating that respondent No.5’s date of birth is 15-11-1938 and at the time of of Hyderbad Mukti Sangram, his age was 10 years. It was further stated in the said letter that, Department of General Administration, Government of Maharashtra is made aware about the said fact and the necessary direction is sought for from the 4 General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra. The learned counsel further submitted that, the date of birth of respondent No.5 is 15-11-1938 as disclosed in the certificate issued by the Police Patil, Bidkin, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. So also the extract of Pravesh Nirgam Register issued by the Head Master, Primary School, Bidkin clearly shows that the respondent No.5 was admitted in the school in the year 1943 in first standard. It is further submitted that, though the respondent No.5 has studied in the primary school at Bidkin up to 4th standard, and there was entry in the school record about his date of birth, the respondent No.5, instead of filing the document issued by the school showing his date of birth, had filed a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon in support of his age. It is further submitted that the date of birth of respondent No.5 is 15-11-1938 and at the time of Hyderabad Mukti Sangram, he was hardly 9 years old, and therefore, considering the fact that at the time of obtaining pension from the Government, he has suppressed this fact, though substantial 5 documents regarding age proof was available with the respondent No.5. It is further submitted that, the respondent No.5 had not participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and submitted false claim for getting the pension and fraudulently, obtained pension from the Central Government and State Government. The learned counsel in support of his contention, placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar V/s. State of Maharashtra (2005 AIR SCW 4094). The learned counsel further submitted that only because the claim was sanctioned in the year, 1982, it was not proper on the part of authorities to stop the inquiry in the matter since the petitioner had submitted the important documents regarding the age of respondent No.5, thereby showing that at the time of Hyderabad Liberation Movement, the respondent No.5 was only 9 years old. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that considering the age of the respondent No.5 at the relevant time, it cannot 6 be said that he would have participated in the said movement as under ground freedom fighter. However, by obtaining false affidavits and documents, respondent No.5 got the freedom fighter’s pension sanctioned. It was, therefore, prayed that the petition may be allowed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 invited our attention to the Affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No.5, and submitted that the respondent No.5 had taken part in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement during the period from August, 1947 to September, 1948 and he had participated in the underground activities of the movement. The learned counsel, in support of his contention that respondent No.5 had participated in the said movement, has invited our attention to Annexture-1 i.e. certificate issued by the camp in-charge about the participation of the present petitioner in the Hyderabad Mukti Sangram. The learned counsel further submitted that, the Government of India formed and appointed one screening committee. The said committee had scrutinised the application 7 forwarded by the respondent No.5 along with all the documents and the proposal was sent for grant of Sanman Pensoin and after approval from Ministry of Home Affairs, freedom fighters Section, the pension is granted to the respondent No.5. It is further submitted that, the camp in- charge for Erandgaon, Shri Kashinath Pralhadrao Kulkarni, has submitted report in regard to underground movement to the committee and in the said report, details in regard to freedom fighters, who have actively participated in a Hyderabad Liberation Movement, have been narrated. In the said report there are details in respect of Paithan Taluka, wherein name of respondent No.5 is included. The learned counsel further invited our attention to Annexure R-1 and submitted that, even the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon is sufficient as proof of age and birth date. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that, the respondent No.5 had submitted the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon before the committee as his proof of age. The learned counsel invited our attention to para No. 9 of the affidavit-in-reply and contended that, 8 there was a Civil Suit bearing R.C.S. No. 171 of 1978 filed by the petitioner's father against the respondent No.5, which was allowed on 28-08-2007. Thereafter, R.C.A. No. 77 of 2007 came to be filed on 01-10-2009. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that, the complaint and writ petition filed by the petitioner is due to personal enmity. The learned counsel further submitted that, the respondent No.5 is receiving freedom fighters pension since the year 1982 and complaint is filed by the petitioner in the year 2005, which is hopelessly time barred and on this ground alone this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. This Court by order dated 06-03-2006 issued notices to the respondents. However, no reply is filed on behalf of other respondents except respondent No.5. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at great length. The Annexture-E to the petition shows that the General Administration Department, Government of 9 Maharashtra, after receiving report form the concerned authority, has come to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the petitioner is arising out of personal enmity and no sufficient evidence is filed by the petitioner to stop the pension of the respondent No.5. The said Annexure further makes it clear that further inquiry in the matter is not necessary. Therefore, it appears that the concerned authority i.e. Additional Collector, Aurangabad has inquired into the matter, appreciated the documents placed on record and thereafter, submitted the report to the State Government, on the basis of which it is found that the complaint filed by the petitioner is false and it is filed as a result of the enmity between the parties. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar (supra), has no relevance with the facts in the case in hand. On careful perusal of the Exhibit-C placed on record by the petitioner, it would show that the respondent No.5 was admitted in school on 16-02-1943. In respect of date of birth of 10 the respondent No.5, said document discloses that the date of birth of the respondent No.5 is 12-02-1952. The Exh.C - extract of Admission Register shows date of admission as 16.2.1943, which is even prior to the birth of the respondent No.5, since birth date is shown as 12.2.1952. There seems to be some mistake in recording the dates and as such, it is difficult to rely on Exh.C. There is another document submitted by the petitioner at Exhibit-B, which is certificate issued by Police Patil, Bidkin. Therefore, the Exhibit-C cannot be relied upon. The perusal of the Exhibit A & B to the petition would show the date of birth of the respondent No.5 is 15-11-1938 and at the time of Hyderabad Mukti Sangram the petitioner was 10 years old and merely on this ground, it cannot be said that the respondent No.5 did not participate in the freedom movement. This Court in case of “Bhalchandra Trimbakrao Vaidya V/s. Union of India, (1994 Mh.L.J. 1876) observed in para 8, thus: “8. We, therefore, hold that the 11 persons below 16 years of age at the time of their participation in the Freedom Movement cannot be denied the benefit of Freedom Fighter’s pension under the Scheme of the State Government on the ground of age.” After perusal of Annexure R-1 submitted by the respondent No.5, which is a pro-farma for filing application for the freedom fighter’s pension, clause No.3 would show that, even the certificate of Civil Surgeon as proof of age is sufficient. The clause No.3 of the said pro-farma reads that, in support of age and birth date, either certificate from school / municipal records or from Civil Surgeon, local Senior Most Medical Officer is sufficient. Other annexures to the affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 would show that, the respondent No.5 did participate in the Hyderabad Mukti Sangram. It is the case of the respondent No.5 that, application for freedom fighter’s pension was scrutinized by the screening committee appointed by the State Government, and thereafter, Union of India and 12 Government of Maharashtra had taken a conscious decision to grant freedom fighter’s pension to the respondent No.5. Apart from this, the Additional Collector, has inquired into the matter and report was submitted through Collector, to the Government of Maharashtra. The inquiry revealed that, the complaint filed by the petitioner herein is out of personal enmity and documents submitted by the petitioner were not sufficient to take any action either to stop the pension of the respondent No.5 or to take further action, and therefore, complaint filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected. 8. We do not find, any substance in the petition. The petition is devoid of any merits and it is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] SDM* WP471.06