IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9349 of 2001 BASUDEO NARAIN SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 22.1.2009 The prayer of the petitioner for grant of pension under the freedom fighter pension scheme has been rejected by the authorities by an order dated 24th March, 1999 with the following reasons:- ^^[ksn gS fd Lora=rk lSfud isa'ku ;kstuk] 1980 ds vUrxZr isa'ku gsrq vkids vkosnu i= dks vLohd`r fd;k x;k gS D;ksafd % 1- dksVZ fjdksMZ vuqiyfC/k izek.k i= esa vkius vius fo:) ntZ gq, ds'k ds 'kq: gksus rFkk mlds QSlys dh frfFk;ksa dk o.kZu ugha fd;k gS] ftlesa vkidh ;kruk dh vof/k ds ckjs esa irk ugha pyrkA 2- ftyk inkf/kdkjh] iVuk us dksbZ fjdksMZ vuqiyfC/k izek.k i= dh lR;kiu fjiksZV esa dgk gS fd vkius ,slk dksbZ dkxtkr mUgsa izLrqr ugha fd;k ftlls vkidh tsy ;kruk rFkk th0vkj0 dsl esa vfHk;qfDr gksuk fl) gksrk gksA mUgksaus ;g Hkh dgk gS fd vkidk ekeyk vLohd`fr ;ksX; gSA** Either of the two aforesaid reasons were sufficient for rejection of claim of the petitioner inasmuch as the observations and finding of the Central Government as with regard to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions under the policy for grant of pension under the freedom fighter scheme has to be based on appreciation of authentic materials and documents. If the petitioner has failed to fulfil such requirements as laid down in the 2 policy, no judicial review can be made by this Court sitting as an appellate authority. The scope of judicial review in such matter was also gone into by this Court in the order dated 21.9.2001 in CWJC No. 11787 of 2001 in the case of Vijay Narayan Mishra @ Vijay Narayan Prashant Vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein this Court had held as follows:- “It is for the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to consider as to whether Swatantrata Senani Samman Pension is to be granted or not on the basis of the materials produced before it. This Court cannot sit as an appellate court in disguise to reappraise the matter. Power of review is very limited and unless it is shown that the order is based on no evidence or perverse or arbitrary, this Court will not exercise writ jurisdiction to quash the order.” Concurring with the aforementioned view, this Court would also find that the grounds as mentioned above in the impugned order are also based on appreciation of materials available on record and therefore, there would be hardly any occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. That being so, this application is misconceived and the same is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)