IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily, the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot enter into reappreciation of evidence and reverse the findings arrived at by the State Government unless they be perverse or be such as no reasonable man acting reasonably could have arrived at.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, CJI.-State of Maharashtra, its authorities and Freedom Fighters High Power Committee, the appellants before us are aggrieved by the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai allowing a writ petition filed by the sole respondent herein and directing the appellants to sanction the freedom fighters pension to the respondent and pay him all the arrears.

2. Respondent claims himself to be a freedom fighter entitled to such recognition and release of pension and other privileges as per Government Resolution No. POS-1093/C No.127/FFS/Desk Mantralaya, Mumbai dated the 4th July 1995 which in its turn refers to 6 other Government Resolutions spread over a period between 10th August, 1970 and 5th September, 1992, the particulars whereof are not necessary for our purpose. According to the respondent, he had participated in Goa Liberation Movement and therein he had sustained bullet injuries on the left shoulder. It seems that primary evidence substantiating the respondent s claim is not available and, therefore, he relied on a certificate from the Goa Vimochan Samiti and certain cuttings of newspaper reports. The respondent s claim was rejected by the State Government. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai which by its order dated 11th July, 2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 1636/2002 issued certain directions calling for reconsideration of the respondent s case. Once again, the respondent s case has been rejected on 23rd July, 2003 by the State Government forming an opinion that the criteria laid down vide Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1995 was not satisfied in the case of the respondent and, therefore, Goa Freedom Fighters Pension could not be allowed to him.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the State Government, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. Vide its impugned order, the High Court, placing reliance on the cases of Mukund Lal Bhandari Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1993] Suppl. (3) SCC 2 and Gurdial Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2001] 8 SCC 8, has held that by adopting a liberal approach the entitlement of the respondent to the sanction of the freedom fighters pension should have been upheld. Writ of mandamus has, accordingly, been issued.

4. The Section Officer whose report has been accepted by the Government of Maharashtra has in his detailed note dated 21st July, 2003 stated, inter alia, as under:

"As the proof of the participation in the Goa Liberation Movement, the applicant is required to submit the certificate of Goa Vimochan Samiti. The Goa Vimochan Samiti has forwarded its list to the Government in which the name of the applicant is not seen. He has submitted the certificates from Shri Narayan Soman and Shri Govindrao Malshe and also has claimed in his affidavit that a bullet had hit him on his shoulder. The Collector has requested to take the decision in the matter sympathetically vide his letter dated 28th June, 2003 and also has mentioned that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended the case for the sanction of the pension. However, the applicant has not submitted the required documents. Therefore the pension cannot be sanctioned to him."

5. It appears that the respondent was not able to collect the requisite evidence/material to satisfy the State Government of his entitlement and, therefore, he approached Mumbai Upanagar Zilla Gaurav Samiti (hereinafter Zilla Samiti for short) for the purpose of recommending his case to the State Government. What is the exact status and authority of the Committee i.e. Zilla Samiti is not very clear; however, it appears that this Zilla Samiti has some role to play in the matter of processing of the cases of freedom fighters. This Zilla Samiti on being approached by the respondent did hold an inquiry and in its meeting dated 27th August, 2002 passed a resolution (Annexure-P4) after taking into consideration such material as was produced by the respondent and th