STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusRAGHUNATH GAJANAN WAINGANKAR

              STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.                               A
                            v.
             RAGHUNATH GAJANAN WAINGANKAR

                           AUGUST 6, 2004

             [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.]                       B
       Goa Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme-Application of respondent
rejected by State Government-Challenge to-High Court directed recon-
sideration ofthe case-Recommendations of Zilla Gaurav Samiti/Committee
for grant ofpension-State Government rejected the claim on ground that C
 it was rejected by the Committee in its subsequent meeting-Challenge to-
Allowed by High Court, directing State Government to sanction the pension
and to pay arrears-On appeal, Held: Case ofthe respondent recommended
 by the Committee in its earlier meeting but rejected by it in its subsequent
 meeting-Minutes of earlier· meeting signed by its Chairman only- D
 However, minutes of subsequent meeting signed by all the members and
 approved by the Collector-Hence, resolution adopted by the Committee
 as per minutes of its earlier meeting could not have been acted upon-In
 exercise of writ jurisdiction, High Court erred in relaxing the necessary
 requirements on the faljilment of which alone the claim ofgrant ofpension
 to the respondent could have been determined-Hence, the judgment ofthe E
 High Court set aside and decision of the State Government restored-
 Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226.

      Writ jurisdiction of High Court-Scope of-Discussed.

      Respondent applied for pension under the Goa Freedom Fighters' F
Pension Scheme, claiming himself to be a freedom fighter. He submit-
ted that he had participated in Goa Liberation Movement and sus-
tained bullet injuries on the left shoulder. However, primary evidence
in support thereto was not available, and therefore, he relied on a
certificate issued by the Goa Vimochan Samiti and certain cuttings of G
newspaper reports. State Government rejected the claim. In the writ
petition filed by the respondent, High Court issued certain directions
calling for reconsideration of his claim. In the meantime, respondent
approached Mumbai Upanagar Zilla Gaurav Samiti/Committee for
recommending his case for pension, to the State Government. The H
                                   365
    366               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Committee, vide its resolution dated August 30, 2002, recommended
  his case for grant of pension. However, the appellants have brought
  on record another resolution of the Committee dated September 2,
  2002 whereby the case of the respondent was rejected by the Commit-
  tee. Once again the claim was rejected by the State Government on the
B ground that the criteria laid down for grant of pension was not
  satisfied. Respondent challenged it before the High Court, and the
  High Court directed the State Government to sanction the pension and
  pay arrears to the respondent. Hence the present appeal filed by the
  State.
c         Disposing of the appeal, the Court

         HELD: I.I. The minutes of the Committee's meeting dated 27th
    August, 2002 was signed only by the Chairman while the minutes dated
    2nd September, 2002 of the same Committee was signed not only by
D   the Chairman but all the members of the Committee, counter-signed
    by the Sl'cretary of the Committee and then signed by the Collector
    by way of his agreement and approval of the resolution. In the light
    of the minutes as recorded and signed upto 2nd September, 2002, the
    minutes as they stood upto 30th August, 2002 could not have been acted
E   upon. [368-C, D, El

       1.2. Ordinarily, High Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot
  enter into re-appreciation of evidence and reverse the findings arrived
  at by the State Government unless they be perverse or be such as no
F reasonable man acting reasonably could have arrived at. It the High
  Court found that the decision arrived at by the State Government was
  flawed in any way then the High Court should have, after laying down
  the necessary principles or guidelines or issuing direction, directed the
  State Government to reconsider the case of the respondent. In no case,
G High Court could have in exercise of its writ jurisdiction relaxed the
  need for full satisfaction of the necessary requirements on the fulfilment
  of wl!ich alone the respondent's entitlement to the release of freedom
  fighters' pension depended. [371-B, C, DI

         1.3. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the decision
H   of the State Government is restored. [371-El
            STATE v. R.G. WAINGANKAR [LAHOTI, CJ.]                  367

     Mukund Lal Bhandariv. Union ofIndia & Ors., [1993) Suppl. 3 sec A
2 and Gurdial Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 8, referred
to.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 995 of
2004.
                                                                          B
    From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.2003 of the Bombay High
Court in Writ Petition No. 2249 of 2003.

      H.W. Dhabe, S.S. Shinde and Mukesh K. Giri for the Appellants.

      A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent.
                                                                          c
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. : State of Maharashtra, its authorities and
Freedom Fighters High Power Committee, the appellants before us are D
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.
                                                                          E
      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. F
According to the respondent, he had participated in Goa Liberation
Movement and therein he had sustained built 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 G
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 H
    368                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Government forming an opinion that the criteria laid down vide Govern-
    ment Resolution dated 4th July, 1995 was not satisfied in the case of the
    respondent and, therefore, Goa Freedom Fighters Pension could not be
    allowed be him.

        Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the State Government, the
B 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 v.
  Union ofIndia & Ors., [J 993] Suppl. 3 SCC 2 and Gurdial Singh v. 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
C fighters' pension should have been upheld. Writ of mandamus has,
  accordingly, been issued.

        The Section Officer whose report has been accepted by the Govern-
  ment of Maharashtra has in his detailed note dated 21st July, 2003 stated,
D 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
E            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 required to take the decision in the matter sympathetically
             vide his letter dated 28th June, 2003 and also has mentioned that
F            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 sanc-
             tioned to him."

          It appears that the respondent was not able to collect the requisite
G   evidence/material to satisfy the State Government of his entitlement and,
    therefore, he approached Mumbai Upanagar Zilla Gaurav Samiti (herein-
    after '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
H   Zilla Samiti has some role to play in the matter of processing of the cases
             STATE v. R.G. WAINGANKAR [LAHOTI, CJ.]                   369

of freedom fighters. This Zilla Samiti on being approached by the A
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 then recorded its findings
as under :

             "On the basis of the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court
                                                                             B
        of India and as per the order of the High Court, Mumbai all the
        documents submitted and produced by the said applicant are
        considered and after discussion the following decision is being
        taken :
                                                                             c
        I.    The submission of the applicant in respect of the solid
              evidence is acceptable.

        2.    The evidences produced by the said applicant as per incident
              wise are solid and it will be misunderstood to hold them the D
              circumstantial evidences.

        3.    Age of the applicant is 76 years. Financial condition of the
              applicant is critical and handicapped physical condition is
              the real fact.
                                                                             E
        In these circumstances to avoid injustice to the applicant and to
        give him the Freedom Fighter Sanman Pension, his application for
        the same is recommended."

The minutes of the meeting appear to have been signed on 30th August,
2002. However, the appellants have brought on record another resolution F
of the same Committee (Anenxure -P9) dated 2nd September, 2002 which
reads as under :

              "Shri R.G. Waingankar has applied for freedom fighter
        pension. The documents submitted by him with the application G
        have been verified. It is seen from the documents submitted by
        him that he had participated in Goa Liberation Movement.
        However, as he has not submitted any proof to substantiate his
        claim the Dist. Felicitation Committee (Zila Gaurav Samiti) has
        rejected the case.                                              H
    370                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A           Signatures
            Chairman (ZGS) & Members

            Countersigned:
            Secretary, ZGS (RDC)

B                I agreed with the opinion of ZGS. As there is no substantial
            proof in the case required by the Government Resolution dated
            4th July, 1995, the case has bee.1 rejected.

                                                        Signature
c                                                       Collector
                                                  Mumbai Upanagar Zilla."

          A reading together of the documents Annexure-P4 and Annexure-P9
    clearly suggests that the minutes of the meeting dated 27th August, 2002
D   is signed only by the Chairman while the minutes dated 2nd September,
    2002 is signed not only by the Chairman but all the members of the
    Committee, counter-signed by the Secretary of the Committee and then
    signed by the Collector by way of his agreement and approval of the
    resolution of Zilla Samiti. Needless to say, in the light of the minutes as
    recorded and signed upto 2nd September, 2002, and placed on record the
E   minutes as they stood upto 30th August, 2002 could not have been acted
    upon.

          It is true that in Gurdial Singh 's case (supra) this Court has
    emphasized the need for dealing with the claim of freedom fighters with
F   sympathy dispensing with the need for standard of proof based on the test
    of "beyond reasonable doubt" and the approach should be to uphold the
    entitlement by applying the principle of probability so as to honour, and
    to mitigate the sufferings of the freedom fighters. However, the observa-
    tions of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari 's case (supra) cannot be lost
G   sight of and give a complete go by wherein this Court has very clearly
    directed that :

                  "As regards the sufficiency of the proof, the Scheme itself
             mentions the documents which are required to be produced before
             the Government. It is not possible for this Court to scrutinize the
H            documents which according to the petitioners, they had produced
            STATE v. R.G. WAINGANKAR [LAHOTI, CJ.]                     371

         in support of their claim and pronounce upon their genuineness. A
         It is the function of the Government to do so. We would, therefore,
         direct accordingly."

The High Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not sit in judgment over
the decision of the State Government like an appellate authority. Ordinarily, B
the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot enter into re-appreciation
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. If the High Court found that the decision arrived at
by the State Government was flawed in any way then the High Court
should have, after laying down the necessary principles or guidelines or C
issuing directions, directed the State Government to reconsider the case of
the respondent. In no case, the High Court. could have in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction relaxed the need for full satisfaction of the necessary
requirements on the fulfillment of which alone the respondent's entitlement
to the release of freedom fighter's pension depended.                         D
     The approach of the High Court cannot be countenanced.

       The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside
and the decision of the State Government is restored. The respondent is
still at liberty to make representation afresh to the State Government for E
reconsideration of his case and/or for relaxing the requirements of the
Scheme. But on that we express no opinion of our own.

     The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms but without any
order as to the costs.                                                    F
S.K.S.                                                Appeal disposed of.