State Of Maharashtra And Others v. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent claimed to be a participant in the Goa Liberation Movement and sought recognition as a freedom fighter under Government Resolution No. POS-1093.C No. 127.FFS/Desk dated 4-7-1995 (and earlier connected resolutions). He asserted that he had sustained a bullet injury to his left shoulder and relied on a certificate from Goa Vimochan Samiti and newspaper clippings because primary documentary proof was unavailable.

The State Government rejected his application for the Freedom Fighters’ Pension. On 11-7-2002 the Bombay High Court directed reconsideration of his claim, but the State again refused pension by order dated 23-7-2003, concluding that the 4-7-1995 resolution’s criteria were unmet. The respondent filed another writ petition, and a Division Bench of the High Court—citing Mukund Lal Bhandari and Gurdial Singh—issued a mandamus directing sanction and arrears of pension. The State of Maharashtra, its authorities, and the Freedom Fighters' High Power Committee appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Bombay High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, was justified in directly granting Freedom Fighters’ Pension to the respondent after the State Government had rejected his claim for want of requisite proof.

What is the correct standard of judicial review over governmental assessments of documentary sufficiency under the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in Mukund Lal Bhandari and Gurdial Singh.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2	Government must scrutinise documentary evidence; sufficiency of proof is for the Executive, not the Court, to decide.	The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasise that courts should not themselves scrutinise documents or relax mandatory proof requirements, but should remit matters to the Government if procedural flaws exist.
Gurdial Singh v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 8	Claims of freedom fighters should be considered sympathetically and on a principle of probability rather than strict proof beyond reasonable doubt.	While acknowledging the need for a liberal approach, the Court balanced it against Mukund Lal Bhandari and held that liberal consideration does not entitle the High Court to dispense with essential documentary requirements.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2

Government must scrutinise documentary evidence; sufficiency of proof is for the Executive, not the Court, to decide.

The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasise that courts should not themselves scrutinise documents or relax mandatory proof requirements, but should remit matters to the Government if procedural flaws exist.

Gurdial Singh v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 8

Claims of freedom fighters should be considered sympathetically and on a principle of probability rather than strict proof beyond reasonable doubt.

While acknowledging the need for a liberal approach, the Court balanced it against Mukund Lal Bhandari and held that liberal consideration does not entitle the High Court to dispense with essential documentary requirements.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that the minutes of the Mumbai Upanagar Zila Gaurav Samiti dated 27-8-2002 (favourable to the respondent) were signed only by the Chairman, whereas the subsequent minutes dated 2-9-2002—signed by the Chairman, all members, the Secretary, and approved by the Collector—rejected the respondent's claim for lack of requisite proof. Accordingly, the earlier favourable minutes could not be acted upon.

Reiterating Mukund Lal Bhandari, the Court held that determination of sufficiency and genuineness of documents lies primarily with the Government. Although Gurdial Singh calls for a sympathetic approach, it does not authorise courts to disregard mandatory conditions of the pension scheme.

The Court stressed that in writ jurisdiction the High Court is not an appellate forum to reappraise evidence. It may interfere only if the State’s findings are perverse or irrational; otherwise it should remand the matter with appropriate directions instead of granting relief outright. The High Court’s direct mandamus, issued without the respondent satisfying scheme requirements, therefore exceeded its jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is allowed; the Bombay High Court’s judgment is set aside and the State Government’s decision rejecting the respondent’s pension claim is restored.

Implications: The respondent presently receives no pension but may submit a fresh representation seeking relaxation of requirements, on which the Court expressed no opinion. The decision reinforces the principle that High Courts, while sympathetic, must respect statutory and administrative criteria and cannot substitute their own assessment of documentary sufficiency in freedom-fighter pension cases.

State Of Maharashtra And Others v. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar .

R.C Lahoti, C.J— The 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. The 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 4-7-1995 which in its turn refers to six other government resolutions spread over a period between 10-8-1970 and 5-9-1992, 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 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 11-7-2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 1636 of 2002 issued certain directions calling for reconsideration of the respondent's case. Once again, the respondent's case has been rejected on 23-7-2003 by the State Government forming an opinion that the criterion laid down vide government resolution dated 4-7-1995 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 v. Union of India 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 and Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (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 21-7-2003 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 28-6-2003 and also has mentioned that the Zila 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 Zila Gaurav Samiti (hereinafter “the Zila 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 Zila Samiti is not very clear; however, it appears that this Zila Samiti has some role to play in the matter of processing of the cases of freedom fighters. This Zila Samiti on being approached by the respondent did hold an inquiry and in its meeting dated 27-8-2002 passed a resolution (Annexure P-4) 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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:

1. The submission of the applicant in respect of the solid evidence is acceptable.

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

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 30-8-2002. However, the appellants have brought on record another resolution of the same Committee (Annexure P-9) dated 2-9-2002 which reads as under:

“Shri R.G Waingankar has applied for freedom fighters' pension. The documents submitted by him with the application 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 District Felicitation Committee (Zila Gaurav Samiti) has rejected the case.

Signatures:

Chairman (ZGS) & Members

Countersigned:

Secretary, ZGS (RDC)

I agree with the opinion of ZGS. As there is no substantial proof in the case required by the government resolution dated 4-7-1995, the case has been rejected.

Signature

Collector,

Mumbai Upanagar Zila.”

6. A reading together of the documents Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-9 clearly suggests that the minutes of the meeting dated 27-8-2002 are signed only by the Chairman while the minutes dated 2-9-2002 are signed not only by the Chairman but all the members of the Committee, countersigned by the Secretary of the Committee and then signed by the Collector by way of his agreement and approval of the resolution of Zila Samiti. Needless to say, in the light of the minutes as recorded and signed up to 2-9-2002, and placed on record the minutes as they stood up to 30-8-2002 could not have been acted upon.

7. It is true that in Gurdial Singh case (2001) 8 SCC 8 this Court has emphasised the need for dealing with the claim of freedom fighters with 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 observations of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari case 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 cannot be lost sight of and given a complete go-by wherein this Court has very clearly directed that:

“6. 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 scrutinise the documents which according to the petitioners, they had produced in support of their claim and pronounce upon their genuineness. 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, 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. 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 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 fulfilment of which alone the respondent's entitlement to the release of freedom fighters' pension depended.

8. The approach of the High Court cannot be countenanced.

9. 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 reconsideration of his case and/or for relaxing the requirements of the Scheme. But on that we express no opinion of our own.

10. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms but without any order as to the costs.

Civil Appeal No. 995 of 2004, decided on August 6, 2004

State Of Maharashtra And Others v. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of Maharashtra And Others v. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar .

Comments