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 cl