The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in determining the eligibility of the claimant for the freedom fighter pension, emphasizing the principle of probability and the importance of substantial justice over hyper technicality.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned A.G.P. waives service of notice for respondent no. 3 and learned counsel Shri. B. B. Kulkarni waives service of notice for respondents nos. 1 and 2.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

3. Petitioner, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the communication of respondent no.2 dtd. 19/11/2015 rejecting his claim of Sanman pension and a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to grant him underground freedom fighter Sanman Pension from 19/11/2015.

4. The case of the Petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he participated in the "Hyderabad Mukti Sangram" and worked as an underground freedom fighter. He struggled for freedom. He was campaigning against the erstwhile Nizam Government, collecting the funds for the movement, supplying the arms and weapons to the workers, supplying the information about police movements, arranging for attacks on the police and other allied activities. He worked under the leadership of veteran freedom fighters Shri Nivruttirao Dadarao Raut, Kashinath Rustam Lokhande, Bansilal Tuljiram Patel, Sevadas Kisandas Vaishnav, Shri Lala Laxminarayan Jaiswal, the camp in charge and at village Kolte Takli, Gilda Camp etc. He participated in the freedom fight between 1947 to 1948. Shri Lala Jaiswal has issued him a certificate of his participation in freedom fighting. Since he is eligible, he applied for the Maharashtra Government's "Swatantraya Sainik Sanman Pension". He fulfils the conditions for the entitlement of the said Scheme. The District level Gaurav Committee to its satisfaction, had recommended the proposal of the Petitioner to the State Government for Pension.

5. The State Government had rejected his claim by communication dtd. 10/3/2010. Petitioner had impugned the said communication by Writ Petition No. 11223 of 2010. This Court, by its order dtd. 10/6/2010, set aside the impugned communication dtd. 10/3/2010 and issued the directions to the High Power Committee to consider the Petitioner's claim afresh. Petitioner personally visited the office of the High Power Committee and asked the concerned whether any document was required. The concerned replied that no documents were needed. However, the High Power Committee has assigned the reasons in the impugned order that the Petitioner has not submitted any other evidence of hardship or problems he suffered as prescribed in clauses A, B and C of condition no.1 and conditions nos.3 and 4 of the Government Resolution dtd. 4/7/1995. He also submitted that the impugned communication is against the requisite norms and the earlier judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court on the issue involved in the case at hand. Hence the petition deserves to be allowed.

6. Respondent No.3 filed her affidavit in reply dtd. 31/1/2020 and opposed the petition and supported the impugned communication. She has stated that the High Power Committee has considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra vs Namdeo Sopan Zavare and others ( Civil Appeal No. 789-7901/2013 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 26441-26443/2012 decided on 9/9/2013). The High power committee has examined the documents placed with the application and considered the recommendations. Considering the material on record, the High Power Committer has correctly rejected the Petitioner's claim.

7. Learned counsel Shri Panpatte for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order is erroneous on the face of the record and without valid reasons. Petitioner has complied with all conditions envisaged in the Government Resolution. The Petitioner was an underground freedom fighter; therefore, the police could not catch him. He played a crucial role in the freedom movement, and he worked with and under the renowned freedom fighters who had undergone imprisonment. The Petitioner had annexed the certificate issued by colleague f