Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

3. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the rejection of his application for Freedom Fighter’s Pension, dated 30.10.2010.

4. The petitioner claims to be an underground freedom fighter. Presently, the petitioner is 86 years of age. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, General Administration (Freedom Fighters’ Section). Respondent No.2 is the Swatantra Sainik Pension High Power Committee. Respondent No.3 is the Desk Officer, GAD, (Freedom Fighters’ Section), State of Maharashtra and Respondent No.4 is the Collector of District Osmanabad, who forwarded the proposal of the petitioner for grant of Sanman Pension as being Member-Secretary of the District Level Gaurav Samiti.

5. It is an admitted position that the first application of the petitioner dated 27.9.1995 was rejected by the District Committee in 1999. He, therefore, has moved a second application dated 1.2.2005 requesting Respondent No.4 to consider his claim afresh.

6. The petitioner claims to be an underground freedom fighter, who participated in the Hyderabad Mukti Sangram. He campaigned against the erstwhile Nizam Government, took part in several activities against the Razakar (the Army of the Nizam), joined the Kajala and Matula camp, participated in the Loot of Karodgiri Naka at Deotala, Edshi and Aarola. He left his house and joined the camp operated by the freedom fighter Manik Bhosale. He suffered injuries in the attacks of the Razakar and the Nizam Police. He had filed the affidavit of freedom fighter Manik Bhosale along with two other freedom fighters who were honoured with the Sanman Patra. However, his said application dated 27.9.1995 was rejected.

7. The petitioner submits that along with his second application dated 1.2.2005, he submitted affidavits of two freedom fighters, who had suffered imprisonment for more than two years in the freedom movement. Respondent No.4, by its letter dated 26.9.2007, directed the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 8.10.2007 along with necessary documents and affidavits of freedom fighters who had undergone two years’ imprisonment and copies of Sanman Patras. The petitioner, accordingly, appeared before the Committee and also filed his own affidavit, coupled with the certificate issued by the Village Police Patil and the certificate of the Head Master of the Zilla Parishad, School, Mahalangi. The petitioner filed affidavits of Devidas Kishanrao Joshi, Hambirrao Krushnaji @ Ram Chavan, Shivling Malakappa Kumbhar and Srinivas Yeshwantrao Kulkarni.

8. Respondent No.2 High Power Committee recommended the case of the petitioner. However, vide the impugned order dated 30.10.2010, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the criteria Nos.1,3 and 4. The required four conditions, according to the petitioner, for grant of freedom fighters pension are as follows:-

(a) Proof of torture sustained by the petitioner.

(b) Petitioner was required to leave his home and reside elsewhere (underground).

(c) Submitting Government record regarding underground freedom fighter and,

(d) News paper report about activities as an underground freedom fighter.

9. The petitioner contends that several documents were unavailable and therefore, could not be submitted to Respondent No. 2. He had filed his own affidavit, stating that he had left his home and joined the camp of freedom fighters. Being an underground freedom fighter, his name did not appear in the Government record or news papers. Respondent – State has asked for such documents, which are either not available or cannot be made available inspite of the petitioner participating in the Hyderabad Mukti Sangram. It is, therefore, contended that a technical view has been taken by the respondents and the claim of the petition