The petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim for a Freedom Fighter's Pension. The court held that the petitioner did not fulfill the required criteria for the grant. Consequently, the court could not interfere in the State Government's order via writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition was dismissed and the rule was discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
wp883-11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 883 OF 2011
Ram Sangappa Medewar,
R/o Mukkawar Galli, Mukhed,
Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded PETITIONER
VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
General Administration Department
(Freedom Fighters Section),
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2.Freedom Fighters' High Power
Committee, New Administrative
Building, 8th Floor, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32, through its
Member Secretary.
3.The Desk Officer,
General Administration Department,
(Freedom Fighters Section),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
4.The Collector,
Nanded. RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. V.S. Panpatte, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Standing Counsel for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 4.
.....
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
M.T. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 20th AUGUST, 2011
JUDGEMENT (PER : M.T. JOSHI, J.) :
1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
wp883-11
(2)
heard finally by consent of the parties.
2.The petitioner, by the present petition, is
challenging the order of the State Government whereby
the petitioner's claim for grant of Freedom Fighter's
Pension has been rejected.
3.According to the petitioner, he was a
`Underground Worker' during the Marathwada Mukti
Andolan i.e. struggle for freeing the Marathwada
Region from the erstwhile Nizam Government. His case
was scrutinized by the District Gaurav Samiti and
recommended the same to the State Government for
grant of Freedom Fighter's Pension. The State
Government under the signature of Desk Officer passed
the impugned order rejecting the claim of the
petitioner on the ground that the claim is not
corroborated by the proof showing that the petitioner
was either required to leave his house, leave the
education or was seriously injured in any police
assault. In the present case, two of the Freedom
Fighters had, however, supported the case of the
petitioner by submitting their affidavits alongwith
the proposal.
wp883-11
4.Mr. V.S. Panpatte, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, submits that this Court has
previously found that the supporting affidavits of
two Freedom Fighters is sufficient to grant the
pension. He relied on "Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar
vs. State of Maharashtra and others" 2004 (4)
Bom.C.R. 427. In that case, however, as there was
certain circumstantial evidence to substantiate the
claim of the petitioner therein, on preponderance of
material, the order of the Desk Officer was held to
be illegal, improper and without jurisdiction. It
was also declared that the Desk Officer has no power
to sit in appeal over the unanimous decision of the
Committee.
5.On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. relied
on the decision of the Supreme Court in "State of
Maharashtra and others v. Raghunath Gajanan
Waingankar" AIR 2004 S.C. 4264 i.e. the very case
which was carried to the Supreme Court by the State.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High
Court by holding that the High Court, in its writ
jurisdiction, cannot relax the criteria fixed by the
(4)
wp883-11
State Government unless the reasoning given and the
findings arrived at by the State Government are
perverse or are such that no reasonable man acting
reasonably could have arrived at.
6.In the present case, the criteria for grant
of Freedom Fighter's Pension has not been fulfilled
by the petitioner. In writ jurisdiction, therefore,
there cannot be interference in the order passed by
the State Government.
dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. No order
as to costs.
npj/wp883-11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for Freedom Fighter's Pension satisfied the statutory criteria despite support from other fighters.
Whether the High Court can relax the criteria fixed by the State Government for granting Freedom Fighter's Pension under writ jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar vs. State of Maharashtra and othersReferred¶25
Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2004 (4) Bom.C.R. 427 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra and others v. Raghunath Gajanan WaingankarReferred¶28
State of Maharashtra and others v. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar AIR 2004 S.C. 4264 · Who else cites this
Ram Sangappa Medewar
The State of Maharashtra
Freedom Fighters' High Power Committee
The Desk Officer, General Administration Department
The Collector, Nanded
B.R. Gavai
M.T. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court