AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G. Karnik, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. All these petitions are filed by the persons who claim to be the freedom fighters, challenging the orders of cancellation of the freedom fighter''s pension awarded to them. In pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon. Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 5162 to 5167 of 2005, arising out of SLP Nos. 11344 and 11348 of 2004, one man Commission of Hon. Shri Justice A.B. Palkar (Retired), was appointed to review 354 cases where freedom fighter''s pension had been granted. The Commission was initially granted four months'' time for completion of the work and submission of the report. However, the time was extended twice on 8th March 2006 and 14th August 2006. The Commission of Justice A.B. Palkar examined all the cases referred to it and afforded opportunity of hearing to all the awardees of the freedom fighter''s pension. After examining each case carefully, the Commission recommended that the freedom fighter''s pension in respect of 298 persons, out of 355, should be cancelled. Accordingly, the Government issued a Resolution dated 21st March 2007, cancelling the freedom fighter''s pension in respect of 298 persons. This Government Resolution and the decision taken by the Government for cancellation of the freedom fighter''s pension has been challenged by the petitioners in the present petitions.
Before we examine the cases of individual freedom fighters, it is necessary to mention that the petitions filed by different persons (alleged freedom fighters) challenging individually orders of cancellation of freedom fighters'' pension came up before different Benches of this Court. Writ Petition Nos. 2114, 2130, 2131, 2135, 2140, 2149, 2163, 1014, 1027, 2519, 2522, 2109, 2118, 2128, 2129, 2137, 2142, 2143, 2523, 2106, 2107, 2112, 2117, 2122, 2123, 2141, 2144, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2152, 2153, 2156, 2164 and 2165 of 2008, have been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Smt. Nishita Mhatre & M.T. Joshi, JJ.), by an order dated 14th October 2011. After considering the legal submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, the Division Bench examined the case of each of the petitioners in the light of the recommendations made in each individual case by the one man Commission and dismissed the petitions upholding the decision of cancellation of the pensions. We would also follow the same practice of first considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners and consider the individual cases in the light of the material produced by the individual petitioners.
Regarding Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995
Initially the Government had decided an application claiming freedom fighter''s pension must be within a specified period of time. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and others Vs. Union of India and others, , and a decision of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court, dated 1st September 1994, the Government in supersession of its earlier decision, decided that there would be no time limit for making an application for grant of freedom fighter''s pension. The Government accordingly directed the Collector to consider all pending cases before the Collector as also the cases of fresh applicants on their own merits and not to reject them on the ground that they were not made within the specified time. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti (District Honour Committee) was required to examine the report of the Collector and the evidence produced by the person claiming to be freedom fighter and send its recommendation to the Government for decision, and the Government was to take decision after considering recommendations of the Collector and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. By the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995, the Government laid down certain criteria for grant of a freedom fighter''s pension. The freedom fighters were classified into four separate classes, namely :
(1) Persons who had actually suffered a jail imprisonment,
(2) Persons who were declared absconding,
(3) Persons who were required to go underground during the Quit India Movement of 1942-44 or Hyderabad Freedom Struggle of 1947-48, and
(4) Persons who had participated in the Goa Freedom Struggle.
We are not concerned in the present petitions with the persons who had participated in Goa Freedom Struggle and are concerned with only first three categories of persons. The conditions for a person being eligible for the award of freedom fighter''s person, as laid down in the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995, are as follows :
(1) In respect of persons who had suffered imprisonment, the claimant should produce the certificate of the jailor regarding the imprisonment.
(2) Regarding the persons who were declared absconding, the applicant was required to produce :
(i) A certificate of the concerned officer regarding the issuance of a warrant arrest; or
(ii) If the person was declared as absconder by the court, certified copy of order of the court; or
(iii) If the news of absconding was published in any newspaper at that time, a copy of the newspaper.
(3) Regarding the underground freedom fighters, the applicant was required to produce proof of any of the following sufferings suffered by the applicant :
(a) The claimant was required to leave the house and stay outside; or
(b) He was required to give up education or was removed from any educational institute; or
(c) He suffered disability on account of Police atrocities/beating.
There were certain other common conditions to which we would refer if and when occasion arises.
What should be the approach of the State ?
The State, undoubtedly, has a right to lay down certain conditions for grant of a freedom fighter''s pension, as has been done by it in the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995. However, the standard of proof for considering whether the evidence/material regarding fulfillment of the conditions adduced by the petitioner is adequate, is not the same as is required in a criminal trial. The standard of proof for considering whether the facts that entitle the claimant to a freedom fighter''s pension exist or not, is preponderance of probabilities and not on the touchstone of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (See para 7 in the case of Gurdial Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, ). The State must also bear in mind that it is unreasonable to expect a freedom fighter, and especially dependents of a freedom fighter where he has died, should be readily available with all the documents required for the purpose of proving eligibility to the freedom fighter''s pension. The jail records may not be readily available. The record may be quite old and in some cases the jail record may not be available at all. Sometimes the claimants would have to rely upon third parties for getting the records and/or necessary materials. In such cases, reasonable time must be granted to the claimant and/or his dependents for producing the proof and, if necessary, the Government machinery must help in gathering the proof. The approach of the Government machinery should not be to create obstruction but to help the claimant to prove a genuine claim.
The authorities deciding the claim of a claimant for freedom fighter''s pension must bear in mind that the scheme has been formulated with a view acknowledge the services rendered to the country by patriotic citizens during the freedom movement and who had suffered at the hands of the British Rulers in one way or the other and to compensate them in some measure for their sacrifices for the sake of the country (See para 10 in the case of R. Narayanan Vs. Union of India and another, ).
We may, however, enter a caveat. It is true that a liberal approach is to be adopted in favour of sustaining a grant of freedom fighter''s pension while interpreting the conditions of eligibility laid down in the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995, but care must be taken to weed out the claims made by bogus applicants. The experience has shown that in a benevolent scheme, a person who is not eligible at all makes bogus claims for claiming the benefit. The person who is not poor obtains, by fraudulent means, a certificate of living below poverty line to extract benefits. Similar is the possibility of the person who had really not taken any part in the freedom struggle may falsely claim to be a freedom fighter only to claim financial benefits. The Indian Freedom Struggle belongs to the period 1942-1944 and Hyderabad Freedom Struggle belongs to the period 1947-48. In the year 2012, nearly 70 years have passed from the Freedom Struggle 1942-44. Really very few persons or their widows would be living today who had taken part in the Freedom Struggle 1942-44. The possibility of many who were not even born in 1942-44 or were toddlers but making a claim for freedom fighter''s pension cannot be ruled out. Effort should, therefore, be made to ascertain the date of birth of the claimant. It would be an indicator of his absence in the freedom struggle. A date of birth which is later than 1942-44 or just prior to 1942-44, when a claimant would be a toddler, would be a definite indicator of his absence of participation in the freedom movement. However, the converse may not be true. Every person born long before 1942-44 had not taken part in the freedom struggle. Therefore, the date of birth being long prior to 1942-44 would not, by itself, prove the participation of the claimant in the freedom movement.
Our Approach
Ordinarily, High Court is loath to set aside the findings of facts in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. However, in view of the fact that the cases pertain to the persons who claim to be freedom fighters who have made sacrifices in their early life for the freedom of the country, we have carefully examined the facts of each case to ascertain whether there is any perversity in the decision of the Government in cancellation of the freedom fighter''s pension and/or whether the findings of ineligibility of a person is improbable.
WRIT PETITION No. 954 OF 2008 (Anandrao s/o. Sahebrao Thosar Vs. State & others)
Though a copy of the application made by the petitioner for the freedom fighter''s pension is not filed with the petition or even later, Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner in this case is claiming freedom fighter''s pension as : "an underground freedom fighter". The petitioner has not stated in the affidavit that any of the three conditions mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995, that : (i) he was required to leave the house, or (ii) was required to leave the education, or (iii) suffered disability on account of Police atrocity, is mentioned. Even in the statement recorded by the one man Commission, the petitioner did not state existence of any of the three conditions. The petitioner produced affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane about his alleged participation in the freedom struggle. Computer prints of standard affidavits were used for making affidavits. They were typed with some blank spaces left therein and in one of the blank spaces, name of the present petitioner was filled in by hand. Some typed portion was removed by applying whitener. One man Commission examined this aspect and has observed as follows :
Although the case is recommended by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the recommendation is accepted by the High Power Committee, the supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane suffer from the infirmity of addition of names in the blank space left for that purpose in the typed affidavit apart from this addition of names, there is overwriting by erasing earlier sentence by whitener in respect of material part of incident of Antarveli in the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and the last line in the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane has also been erased with whitener.
The one man Commission of Justice A.B. Palkar also examined all the records and came to the conclusion that there was no reliable material to show that the applicant was required to live away from the house or was required to give up his education or was beaten by the Police. The finding recorded by the one man Commission is not only possible but clearly a probable finding of fact and requires no interference. The petition is dismissed.
WRIT PETITION No. 1020 OF 2008 (Dadarao s/o. Sonaji Bhopale Vs. State & others)
The petitioner made an application for the freedom fighter''s pension on 26th March 1994, alleging that he had taken part in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement in the year 1947. In the application, he mentioned his age to be 67 years indicating that he was born in the year 1917. The petitioner had taken education in Zilla Parishad School at Beed. The one man Commission summoned the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, along with the original school admission register. The date of birth of the petitioner is shown in the school register as 15th March 1937. The one man Commission has concluded that the petitioner was of tender age of 10 years and could not have taken part in the freedom movement. The petitioner had produced a warrant in file No. 7/1357 Fasli, outward No. 407 dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli, equivalent to 2nd December 1947. It mentioned age of the accused to be 10 to 11 years. The original warrant was found by the Commission to be a forged one. Even if we accept the case of the applicant, that the applicant was 67 years of age in 1984 i.e. born in 1917, then the warrant of 1947 obviously does not relate to him because then he would be 30 years of old. Even otherwise, the warrant is found to be forged by the Commission. The Commission has recorded that the claim of the petitioner is fraudulent.
The petitioner had relied upon the affidavit of one Anna Eknath Telap. In paragraph 24 of the affidavit in reply, the respondent State has pointed out that Anna Eknath Telap had filed 900 affidavits in respect of the claims of freedom fighters by 900 persons. All affidavits were phototype affidavits with names of the claimants being filled in the blank space left for the name. We find no error in the finding of the one man Commission that the claim of the petitioner was fraudulent. The petition is dismissed.
WRIT PETITION No. 1026 OF 2008 (Vitthal s/o. Nivrutti Misal Vs. State & others)
The petitioner made an application on 3rd December 1996, claiming to be an underground freedom fighter. A copy of the application is filed at page 21 of the petition. In the application, the petitioner has alleged that under the guidelines of late Mr. Waman Vaze, he was involved in the armed conflict with the Razakar and he was also involved in cutting of tamarind trees. He took part in the Satyagraha near Kodgiri Naka. Petitioner''s statement was recorded before Mane Committee in which he stated that ''he supplied bread, water and other miscellaneous things for a period of ten months to the activists in the freedom movement''. There is variance between the petitioner''s claim made in the application and the statement recorded before Mane Committee. The one man Commission has noted this variance.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap, dated 20th January 1997, and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane, dated 5th November 1996. These affidavits are similar to the affidavits referred in Writ Petition No. 954 of 2008 and suffer from the same vice. The one man Commission of Justice A.B. Palkar did not believe that the petitioner was involved and went underground in the freedom movement of Hyderabad. Having considered all the documents to which our attention has been drawn, we are of the view that the view taken by the one man Commission of Justice A.B. Palkar is a probable view and does not require any interference. The petition is dismissed.
WRIT PETITION No. 1013 OF 2008 (Rambhau s/o. Baba Bhavar Vs. State & others)
Mr. P.D. Bachate, Learned Counsel, seeks discharge as Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Learned Counsel, appears for the petitioner. Heard Mr. Panpatte.
The petitioner was granted freedom fighter''s pension by an order dated 20th October 1999, in pursuance of his application dated 13th March 1989. The pension was granted on the basis of Government Resolutions dated 7th August 1986, 7th August 1992 and 5th September 1992. Mr. Panpatte submitted that the Government ought not have applied the criteria laid down in the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 for considering the claim of the petitioner. The conditions which have been imposed subsequent to the application dated 13th March 1989 could not be applied to the petitioner.
There is fallacy in the argument, as much as though the application is dated 13th March 1989, the petitioner himself claims that he was granted pension on the basis of two Government Resolutions dated 7th August 1992 and 5th September 1992, which are subsequent to the date of application viz. 13th March 1989. In our view, the Government is entitled to prescribe criteria for grant of pension and also entitled to modify the criteria for grant and/or continuation of freedom fighter''s pension. The criteria may not remain static and the Government would be entitled to review the cases in accordance with the criteria which are in existence on the date of review.
Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that once a freedom fighter''s pension was granted, it was not open to the Government to review or revise or modify or rescind the order of pension. In support, he referred and relied upon the below quoted observations made in the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tukaram Koli and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, :
We may also clarify that it will not be proper for the Government to reject the applications processed by the Gaurav Samiti and pending before the Government for final decision solely on the ground that they do not comply with the requirements of G.R. dated 4th July 1995, specifically when all these claims have been scrutinized by the Collector and recommended by the Gaurav Samiti on the basis of the guidelines/requirements that were in force at the relevant time.
The Government had noticed a large scale fraud in grant of applications for freedom fighter''s pension. The matter was also brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by the Government in the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, . In that case, the Supreme Court observed as follows :
To give finality to the controversy, we appoint Mr. Justice A.B. Palkar, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court to examine the 354 cases. The relevant files shall be handed over to the Commission immediately. The Commission is requested to complete the verification within four months and submit its report to the State Government for necessary action. The claimants whose cases are to be examined shall be given opportunity to have their say before the Commission. The records of the Zilla Gaurav Samittee, High Power Committee and the Committee appointed by the High Court shall be examined by the Commission before issuing notice to the individual applicants to decide the acceptability or otherwise of the claims for freedom fighter'' pension. On getting report of the Commission, the State Government shall take necessary action. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the acceptability or otherwise of the claims as the Commission appointed by this Court shall examine those aspects.
(Underlining supplied)
The Supreme Court appointed one man Commission headed by Justice A.B. Palkar for verification of the various cases where freedom fighter''s pension alleged to have been claimed wrongfully. The one man Commission was to submit report to the State Government within the specified time and the Government was permitted to take action on receipt of the report. The Government has taken action in pursuance of the report of one man Commission headed by Justice A.B. Palkar. It is settled principle of law that fraud vitiates every solemn act. If the orders of grant of freedom fighter''s pension were obtained fraudulently or on the basis of fraudulent material, it is always open to the Government to revoke the said order on noticing of fraud. It, therefore, cannot be said that the case could not have been reopened once the freedom fighter''s pension was granted. In fact, 355 cases were reopened in pursuance of a permission granted by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (Supra). We see no error in the Government decision to re-open and/or re-look into the cases of freedom fighters'' pension.
With the help of Learned Counsel for the petitioner, we have perused copies of the records annexed to the petition and said to have been produced by the petitioner before one man Commission. In the application dated 13th March 1989, the only thing that was mentioned by the petitioner was that he was involved in the burning of Karodigri Naka and that he furled the tri-colour flag. The application does not state anywhere any hardship alleged to have been suffered by the petitioner on account of the said act nor does it say that the petitioner was ever required to go underground. The petitioner subsequently filed affidavits of Dr. Premraj Uttamchandra Changediya and Mohan Narhari Deth, amongst others, to substantiate his claim that he had taken part in the freedom movement of Hyderabad. Dr. Premraj Uttamchandra Changediya and Mohan Narhari Deth, have stated that they had taken part in the freedom movement of India in 1942 to 1948. There was no material to show that they were also involved in the freedom movement of Hyderabad. It is not case of the petitioner that he was involved in the freedom movement of India in 1942-44, but his case is that he was involved in the freedom movement of Hyderabad. The affidavits of Dr. Premraj Uttamchandra Changediya and Mohan Narhari Deth, regarding the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the freedom movement of Hyderabad are, therefore, of no assistance to the petitioner and have rightly been not relied upon by the one man Commission. As regards the other affidavits and especially affidavit of Namdev Balawant Aher, it may be noted that in his statement made before Mane Committee, the petitioner himself stated that he did not know Mr. Aher. Thus, the affidavit of Namdev Balwant Aher, stating that the petitioner was involved in the freedom movement of Hyderabad is of no assistance. In the affidavit filed by the State, it is pointed out that in the first group of cases pertaining to the alleged underground freedom fighters, Mr. Aher had filed 46 affidavits supporting various freedom fighters. In a second group of cases, wherein freedom fighter''s pension was rejected, Mr. Aher had filed 24 affidavits supporting various freedom fighters and in third group of cases, Mr. Aher had filed 44 affidavits, wherein freedom fighter''s pension was rejected. Mr. Namdeo Balwanta Aher appears to be a stock witness who is certifying participation of several persons in freedom movement. What has been stated in Writ Petition No. 954/2008, regarding nature of the affidavits and insertion of names of alleged freedom fighters subsequently by hand in the other affidavits, applies equally to the affidavit of Mr. Aher also. We are, therefore, of the view that the conclusion reached by the one man Commission, that the petitioner was not involved in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement, is a probable finding of fact and needs no interference. The petition is dismissed.
WRIT PETITION No. 1029 OF 2008 (Bapurao Banduji Bhapkar Vs. State & others)
The petitioner had made two applications, one dated 1st November 1995, and another dated 30th December 1997 for grant of freedom fighter''s pension. Along with the first application dated 1st November 1995, he filed affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia. Along with the second application dated 30th December 1997, he filed affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. The affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap are phototype affidavits. In the blank spaces left therein, name of the applicant has been inserted. What has been stated in respect of such affidavits in Writ Petition No. 954/2008 applies equally to this case also. As regards the affidavits of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia, he had taken part in the freedom movement of India in 1942-44. While the petitioner''s case is that he had taken part in the freedom movement of Hyderabad in 1947-48. There is no material on record that Dr. Changedia had also taken part in the freedom movement of Hyderabad in 1947-48. The affidavit of Dr. Changedia, therefore, does not assist the petitioner.
It is worthwhile to note that the claim of the petitioner was not accepted by the Collector and he recommended to the Government not to accept petitioner''s case for freedom fighter''s pension. The State Government initially rejected claim of the petitioner. Wheels moved quickly thereafter on a note put up by an assistant and the Government reviewed its order. The State Government re-considered case of the petitioner and granted him freedom fighter''s pension. The case was thereafter reopened on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (supra).
In the affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane, he has stated that the petitioner had worked with him. However, in the statement of the petitioner recorded before Mane Committee, the petitioner has stated on oath that he knew Eknath Telap and Fakira Dhakne but did not work with him. All this material has been considered by the one man Commission which has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not established that he had taken part in the freedom movement of 1947 and that he suffered any hardship as required under the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995. We find that the view taken by the one man Commission is a probable view and needs no interference. The petition is dismissed.
WRIT PETITION No. 1022 OF 2008 (Jalindar s/o. Narayan Bikkad Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 1028 OF 2008 (Maruti s/o. Ganapati Misal Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 1138 OF 2008 (Kishan s/o. Shivram Tandale Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 2517 OF 2008 (Vikram s/o. Kisan Wanve Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 2524 OF 2008 (Digambar s/o. Haribhau Kulkarni Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 2513 OF 2008 (Babasaheb s/o. Kisan Wanve Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 2514 OF 2008 (Mahadeo s/o. Abaji Naiknavare Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 2516 OF 2008 (Manohar s/o. Genaji Bangar Vs. State & others)
Mr. P.D. Bachate, learned Advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1022/2008, 1028/2008, 1138/2008, 2517/2008, 2524/2008, 2513/2008, 2514/2008 and 2516/2008, reports no instructions. He states that the petitioners have collected the briefs from him for engaging another Advocate and have also obtained his no objection on Vakalatnama of other Advocate.
No other Advocate duly instructed by the petitioners in any of the aforesaid cases is present. The petitioners are also absent. We have perused the petitions and the annexures thereto with the help of learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing for the State. We find no error in the conclusion reached by the one man Commission that the petitioners did not participate in the freedom struggle and were not entitled to freedom fighters'' pension. We, therefore, find no error in the decision of the Government in revoking their pension. All these petitions are dismissed.
DATE : 16TH MARCH 2012
WRIT PETITION No. 1135 OF 2008 (Balbhim s/o. Tatyaba Khilare Vs. State & others)
Mr. P.D. Bachate, Learned Counsel, seeks discharge as Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Learned Counsel, appears for the petitioner. Heard Mr. Panpatte.
The petitioner was initially granted freedom fighter''s pension in the year 1997-98. However, the pension was revoked by an order dated 21st March 2007, in pursuance of the report of one man Commission. Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the one man Commission of Justice A.B. Palkar committed an error in not examining on oath the Members of the Gaurav Samiti and High Power Committee who had initially recommended the petitioner''s case for grant of freedom fighter''s pension. The one man Commission was appointed by the Hon. Supreme Court by its order passed in the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (supra). In paragraph 20 of the decision, after appointing the one man Commission of Justice A.B. Palkar, the Supreme Court issued the following directions :
.......... The records of the Zilla Gaurav Samittee, High Power Committee and the Committee appointed by the High Court shall be examined by the Commission before issuing notice to the individual applicants to decide the acceptability or otherwise of the claims for freedom fighter'' pension..........
The Honourable Supreme Court, thus, directed the one man Commission only to examine the records. No direction was issued to examine on oath the Members of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and High Power Committee. In our view, examination on oath of the Members of Zilla Gaurav Samiti (District Honour Committee) and High Power Committee was not necessary. Separate Zilla Gaurav Samitis (District Honour Committees) were appointed in each District for the purpose of initial scrutiny of the claims made by the persons claiming to be the freedom fighters. Each District Honour Committee examined hundreds of cases and recommended a few and did not recommend a few other cases for grant of freedom fighter''s pensions. The reasons were recorded by the District Honour Committee for recommending the claim and/or not recommending the claim and they are available in the file. It would not necessary, nor open for members of the District Honour Committee to come and depose anything beyond the reasons recorded by them and contained in the files. As such, examining Members of the District Honour Committee was unnecessary and they could not have said anything more than what they had stated in their recommendation. Same is the case in respect of High Power Committee which considered the reports received from District Honour Committees all over the State and made their recommendations. Their recommendations, which are written on the file, speak for themselves and the members of the High Power Committee could not have spoken anything more than what was mentioned in the written recommendations. For these reasons, we reject the contention of Learned Counsel Mr. Panpatte that it was necessary for the one man Commission to examine on oath the members of District Honour Committee and High Power Committee before submitting its report.
Secondly, Mr. Panpatte submitted that the petitioner''s case ought to have been considered on the basis of the Government Resolutions of 7th of August 1992 and 5th September 1992, and not on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995. In support of his submission, he referred and relied upon decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tukaram Ramji Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). In the present case, petitioner''s application was pending before the Collector on 4th July 1995 and decided only in the year 1998. Even according to the decision of the Full Bench, the case was required to be considered in accordance with Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court by its order dated 22nd August 2005, in the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (supra), appointed the one man Commission of Mr. Justice A.B. Palkar (Retired) for making report to the Government as to the eligibility of entitlement of the applicants for the freedom fighter''s pension. The Commission was required to apply the guidelines which were given in Government Resolution dated 4th of July 1995, for considering the eligibility of the freedom fighter''s pension to the petitioner. There is no merit in the second contention also.
The petitioner relied upon the affidavit of Anna Eknathrao Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay. Their affidavits suffer the same infirmity of adding name of the petitioner in blank space as has been noted by us in the earlier part of the decision. In addition, the affidavits were contradictory to the petitioner''s own statement recorded before the Mane Committee.
Lastly, Mr. Panpatte submitted that freedom fighter''s pension has been granted to 29 eminent persons without verifying the records and without application of mind. The same yardstick which was applied for grant of pension to 29 eminent persons ought to have been applied in the case of the petitioner also and the petitioner should have been granted freedom fighter''s pension without verifying the record. The submission is stated only to be rejected. The petitioner has not joined any of the 29 eminent persons qua whom he claims discrimination as party to the petition. There is nothing on record before this Court to show that the petitioner has been discriminated qua 29 persons. In the circumstances, the submission cannot be accepted. There is no merit in this petition also. The petition is dismissed.
WRIT PETITION No. 1039 OF 2008 (Pandharinath s/o. Bakirao Nanaware Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 1137 OF 2008 (Nivrutti s/o. Jogu Anushe Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 1139 OF 2008 (Prabhakar s/o. Bajirao Wanve Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 1140 OF 2008 (Mukta s/o. Bapu Dhas Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 1918 OF 2008 (Dattatraya s/o. Babasaheb Badage Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 2515 OF 2008 (Mahadeo s/o. Rakhmaji Gopalghare Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 2518 OF 2008 (Bansilal s/o. Bhaurao Bhutada, deceased through L.Rs.. Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 2520 OF 2008 (Bhausaheb s/o. Gulabrao Bhosale Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 2521 OF 2008 (Limba s/o. Nivrutti Rakh Vs. State & others)
WRIT PETITION No. 1136 OF 2008 (Tukaram s/o. Maruti Pawar Vs. State & others)
Mr. P.D. Bachate, learned Advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1039/2008, 1137/2008, 1139/2008, 1140/2008, 1918/2008, 2515/2008, 2518/2008, 2520/2008, 2521/2008 and 1136/2008, reports no instructions. He states that the petitioners have collected the briefs from him for engaging another Advocate and have also obtained his no objection on Vakalatnama of other Advocate.
No other Advocate duly instructed by the petitioners in any of the aforesaid cases is present. The petitioners are also absent. We have perused the petitions and the annexures thereto with the help of learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing for the State. We find no error in the conclusion reached by the one man Commission that the petitioners did not participate in the freedom struggle and were not entitled to freedom fighters'' pension. We, therefore, find no error in the decision of the Government in revoking their pension. All these petitions are dismissed.