1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. All the petitioners are challenging the directions of the respondent no.1-State of Maharashtra issued vide Government resolution dated 21.03.2007 whereunder the pension granted to them under the scheme called as "Swatantrya Sainik Pension Scheme" has been withdrawn.
3. All the petitioners claim that they were underground freedom fighters who have fought for the freedom of the Marathwada region from the rule of the Nizam of Hyderabad. Arrest warrants were issued against them. They were duly granted the pension as per the scheme framed by the respondent no.1-State of Maharshtra. The same however came to be withdrawn in the following background :
4. On 16.10.2001 a news item was published in Daily newspaper, wherein it was published that one Sherkhan Walikhan Pathan was arrested for preparing forged arrest warrants to substantiate the claim of various persons as freedom fighters. In view of the said news, Advocate Shri Ajit Deshmukh, the then President of Beed District Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Samiti and Mr. Bhaurao Dagadu Paralkar filed a Public Interest Petition no. 2619 of 2002 in the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. They had contended that 354 persons had obtained Sanmanpatra as freedom fighters and consequently secured pension on the basis of forged documents like arrest warrants and therefore, wanted that their pension be withdrawn. In the said proceeding, the concerned Collector filed affidavit stating that 26 out of 354 persons were the minors, and were of extremely tender age and some of them were not even born during the said Marathwada Liberation Movement. In view of these facts, the High Court called all 3000 files of various persons, to whom the pension was granted. Out of those files, 354 files were retained by the High Court and a Committee headed by Shri M.R. Mane (hereinafter called as "Mane Committee") was appointed by the High Court alongwith one practicing lawyer and one freedom fighter to scrutinize those files. Mr. Mane was the Retired Judicial Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
5. Mane Committee issued notices to 355 persons, which included one case of a person, alleged to have participated in the Goa Liberation Movement, with which we are not concerned in the present group of Petitions. The Mane Committee recorded statements of those freedom fighters on oath. The material that was on record was considered. No submissions were heard and the concerned were not allowed to be represented by the lawyers. Subsequently, the report was submitted by the Mane Committee to the High Court. The Mane Committee concluded that 349 cases do not comply with the requirements of the scheme. Those persons against whom those adverse remarks were passed filed Civil Applications in the Public Interest Petition to implead them as respondents or as intervenors. The High Court refused to grant the prayer. The persons, therefore, filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court though rejected the Special Leave Petitions, had granted liberty to file separate Writ Petitions in the High Court. Therefore, number of Writ Petitions were filed by the affected persons. The High Court on merit dismissed the Public Interest Petition and allowed the Writ Petitions of those persons.
6. The order of the High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court of India by the petitioners in the Public Interest Petition. The Supreme Court disposed of the proceedings i.e. Special Leave Petition no. 11344 and 11348 of 2004 on 2.8.2005. Inter-alia the Supreme Court passed the following order:- " To give finality to the controversy, we appoint Mr. Justice A. B. Palkar a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court to examine the 354 cases. The relevant files shall be handed over to the commission immediately. The commission is requested to complete the verification within four months and submit its report to the State Government for necessarily action. The claimants whose cases are to be examined shall be given opportunity to have their say before "the Commission". The records of the Zilla Gaurav Committee, High Power Committee and the Committee appointed by the High Court shall be examined by the Commission before issuing notice to individual applications to decide the acceptability or otherwise of the claims for freedom fighters pension. On getting report of the commission, the State Government shall take necessary action. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the acceptability or otherwise of the claims as the Commission appointed by this Court shall examine those aspects."
7. In view of the above order, the State of Maharashtra issued a Government resolution dated 1.10.2005, appointing Justice Mr. Palkar. (hereinafter called as "Justice Palkar Commission").
8. The report of Justice Palkar Commission was submitted to the State Government on 22.02.2007. The Commission recommended withdrawal of pension in 298 cases, out of 354 cases. The report shows that it had divided 354 cases in three parts. One part related to the claims based on warrants, which seem to have been issued by the then authority of the Hyderabad State against the claimants on the charges that they had taken part in different instances relating to the Marathwada Liberation Movement. As already noted in the present group of Petitions, we are concerned with the cases of claim based on the facts of issuing of warrants and in the present judgment, we are dealing with only three warrants said to have been issued i.e. (i) Warrant no. 21 / 1357 - Outward No. 270 dated 15 Bahman 1357 Fasli corresponding to 15th February, 1948, (ii) Warrant no. 205/1357 Fasli - Outward no. 209 dated 24th Isfandar 1357 corresponding to 24th January, 1948 and (iii) Warrant no. 21/2 of 1357 Fasli Outward no. 214.
[A] Procedure adopted by Justice Palkar Commission :
9. The report of Justice Palkar Commission shows that notices were issued to all the persons whose cases were examined. The
petitioners in Public Interest Petition were directed to file their affidavits as well as the affidavits of their witnesses, if any. Justice Palkar Commission held its sitting at Beed as almost all the claimants were from Beed district. Opportunity of cross-examining the petitioner and their witnesses for and on behalf of all the claimants were given by supplying the photocopies of the affidavits filed by the petitioners. Accordingly, the cross-examination was held during the first sitting of Justice Palkar Commission at Beed. On behalf of all the petitioners in Public Interest Petition, Mr. Ramrao Awargaonkar and Advocate Mr. Ajit Deshmukh were cross-examined. Out of these witnesses, Justice Palkar Commission found that Advocate Shri Ajit Deshmukh was not even born when the Liberation Movement was going on and, therefore, had no personal knowledge. Mr. Awargaonkar however was found to be the Chairman of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, appointed for honouring the freedom fighters and was himself a freedom fighter. After the cross-examination of these two witnesses, six petitioners applied for permission to cross-examine the claimants whose cases were to be examined. Justice Palkar Commission felt that it would be impracticable to call all the 355 persons, therefore, few of them were called for cross-examination by issuing summonses. However, "almost all the respondents who were so summoned filed different applications raising their objections to offer themselves for cross-examination either by the petitioners (in the Public Interest Petition) or even by the Advocate appointed for the Commission. They even went to the extent of alleging that the work of Commission is going on in favour of one party, that the petitioners have no right to cross-examine them and there is no direction from the Hon'ble Supreme Court". (Justice Palkar Commission report Part I page 11 and 12).
10. As the claimants to whom the summonses were issued refused to offer themselves for cross-examination, a common order was passed on all such objections by the Commission to inform them that though the Commission was not forcing them to offer themselves for cross-examination, the Commission would be entitled to draw inference in accordance with law on this conduct of refusing to offer themselves for cross-examination. The Commission inferred that it would have been inconvenient for the claimants to offer themselves for cross-examination as they had made various improvements in their affidavits from time to time and made various contradictory statements. Various Advocates were engaged by the claimants. State of Maharashtra had appointed Mr. Ghute Patil, Advocate while the Commission had also appointed Shri R.M. Deshpande as Commission's Advocate.
11. The copies of arrest warrant were on record. Those were sent by the Commission for examination by hand-writing expert for comparing the signature with certain documents which according to the Commission can be said to be undisputed documents containing the undisputed signatures of the Tahsildar Mr. Mir Moinnuddin Ali Khan, the alleged signatory of those warrants. The Commission ultimately came to the conclusion that the copies of the warrants submitted before it were forged. It was made clear by the Commission that it had not drawn any adverse inference against the claimants on their refusal to present themselves for cross- examination and has proceeded on the basis of the material before it.
12. Justice Palkar Commission found that the claim of the claimants was that the warrants were issued by one Mr. Mir Moinnuddin Ali Khan, B.A. LL.B., the then Tahsildar of Patoda. As it was the practice at the relevant time to issue copies of the arrest warrants to the District Superintendent of Police and to the Courts of Judicial Magistrates in the District, Justice Palkar Commission issued summons to those authorities to secure the original documents or atleast copies forwarded from the Office of the Tahsildar, Patoda to them. Those authorities submitted the material in some cases that was available with them after much communication. The Tahsildar has reported that the original record was deposited with the Collector, Beed. Thereupon, the Collector forwarded two files containing 15 warrants in addition to other confidential reports. Ultimately, in view of the expert opinion and also upon perusal of the signatures, Justice Palkar arrived at the conclusion that the forgery of the warrants in the disputed cases is ex-facie visible to the bare eye of a layman. Further, some of the copies of the warrant were also in the names of the persons who were minors or were of such tender age at the time of Liberation Movement that no warrant could have been issued against them. The Commission recorded finding separately in individual cases.
13. The Commission submitted its report to the Government on the basis of which the Government resolution for withdrawal of the pension was passed. Aggrieved by the Government resolution, the respective claimants have filed independent Writ Petitions. In the present group of Writ Petitions, we are dealing with the cases of the three warrants as detailed above.
[B] The Submissions on behalf of the petitioners :
14. Mr. V. J. Dixit, the learned senior counsel principally made the following submissions :-
(i) That the entire exercise was against the provisions of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952. (hereinafter called as " The Act" for brevity)
(ii) No proper opportunity of hearing was granted by Justice Palkar Commission and in the alternative the appreciation of evidence made by the Commission was wrong. (iii) Opportunity of hearing by the respondent State, before acceptance of the report and before cancellation of the direction for payment of pension is not given. The Supreme Court in its order did not contemplate a trial but the Commission allowed parties to lead evidence.
[C] Submissions on behalf of the respondent :
15. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil for the respondents submitted as under:-
(i) As the Supreme Court had directed that Justice A.B. Palkar shall make enquiry, the directions were issued under the plenary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and therefore, the provisions of the Act, were not applicable.
(ii) Appropriate opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners by Justice Palkar Commission. (iii) Evidence on record was properly appreciated and upon hearing, the findings were given in the report. Therefore, there was no need to again hear the petitioners after submission of the report.
16. We propose to detail the submissions of both the sides and to give our findings/conclusion at the one and same place in order to avoid repetition.
[D] Nature of Enquiry by Justice Palkar Commission :
17. As regards the applicability of the Commission of Enquiry Act, Mr. V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel has advanced argument on behalf of the petitioners. He submitted that since the Supreme Court has directed for appointment of a Commission, headed by Shri Justice A.B. Palkar (since deceased), it was necessary for the State Government to appoint the Commission of Enquiry under the provisions of the Act. The enquiry ought to have been conducted as per the provisions of the Act. The report of the Commission ought to have been considered by the Cabinet and thereafter, the proper decision by the State Government ought to have been taken on the report.
18. We have however in paragraph no.6 above, in verbatim reproduced the direction of the Supreme Court issued on 2.8.2005 in Special Leave Petition no. 11344 and 11348 of 2004. It would show that it is not the State Government which has appointed Shri Justice A.B. Palkar to preside over the Commission of Enquiry but the Supreme Court in its plenary jurisdiction has appointed Shri Justice A.B. Palkar to make enquiry into the matter and the State Government was directed to merely make necessary arrangements. In view of this, the provisions of the Act were not applicable in the present case.
19. Inspite of the above observations, it is however necessary to be borne in mind that principles of natural justice would undoubtedly be required to be followed in any such enquiry and as to whether those principles were followed or violated are being examined at the proper place.
[E] Whether opportunity of hearing was given by Justice Palkar Commission :
20. The entire procedure adopted by Justice Palkar Commission has been summarised herein-above. It would show that the Commission has held its sitting at Beed i.e. the nearest place from the residence of the petitioners. Further, opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses on behalf of the petitioners in Public Interest Petition was given to the present petitioners. Further, the petitioners in representative capacity were allowed to place their affidavits on record. However, they not only refused to offer themselves for cross- examination but even opposed the said direction though the some of them earlier had availed the opportunity to cross-examine the petitioners in Public Interest Petition. Therefore, the objection of the present Writ petitioners that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded, cannot be accepted.
[F] Non-Grant of opportunity of hearing before acceptance of the report by the State Government :
21. Mr. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners emphatically submitted that no sooner the report was submitted to the State Government by Justice Palkar Commission, within 30 days, the Government resolution dated 21.3.2007 was issued under the signature of one Under Secretary of acceptance of the report. According to him, in fact, it was for the Government to take decision and before taking any decision adverse to the interest of the petitioners, it was necessary that opportunity of hearing on the report should have been given to the petitioners.
22. We have already found that full opportunity of hearing was given by Justice Palkar Commission during the enquiry conducted by it. Thereafter, upon hearing both the sides, the report was prepared and submitted to the State Government. In such situation, since ample opportunity of hearing was given during the enquiry itself, the second opportunity was not required at the time of acceptance of the report by the State Government.
23. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the action of the State Government is in way unreasonable or arbitrary in this regard.
[G] Appreciation of Evidence and Standard of Proof :
24. As regards the appreciation of evidence on record, it would differ from case to case. We therefore, propose to appreciate this aspect on case to case basis, though facts generally applicable in all the cases is required to be appreciated jointly.
25. As regards the standard of proof required in the present case reliance was placed on the ratio of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and ors. v. Union of India and ors. 1993 Supp. (3) S.C.C. 2 and Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and ors. (2001) 8 S.C.C. 8. Both the cases pertain to the award of pension to the freedom fighters.
26. Mr. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance in the following observations made in the case of Gurdial Singh, wherein ratio of Mukund Lal Bhandari was quoted:- (32) JUD-WP-2114-2008+GROUP
"7. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the Scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the Scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the Scheme had suffered for the country about half-a-century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Scheme. The case of the claimants under this Scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone of the test of "beyond reasonable doubt". Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence.
8. We have noticed with disgust that the respondent authorities have adopted a hyper technical approach while dealing with the case of a freedom fighter and ignored the basic principles / objectives of the Scheme intended to give the benefit to the sufferers in the freedom movement. The contradictions and discrepancies, as noticed hereinabove, cannot be held to be material which could be made the basis of depriving the appellant of his right to get the pension. The case of the appellant has been disposed of by ignoring the mandate of law and the Scheme. The impugned order also appears to have been passed with a biased and closed mind, completely ignoring the verdict of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari case. We further feel that after granting the pension to the appellant, the respondents were not justified in rejecting his claim on the basis of material which already existed, justifying the grant of pension in his favour. The appellant has, unnecessarily, been dragged to litigation for no fault of his. The High Court has completely ignored its earlier judgments in Mohan Singh V. Union of India decided on 1-6-1995 and C.W.P. no. 14442 of 1995 decided on
11-12-1995."
27. The analysis of the ratio would show that since the scheme was floated by the State in order to honour the freedom fighters, the standard of proof cannot be high and technicality need not play a role in the appreciation of evidence. The findings of the Commission would show that though the Commission had issued a note of caution that a suitable inference may be drawn in case the present petitioners refused to appear for cross-examination, still, the Commission did not draw any adverse inference against them and on the material before it, the conclusions were made. The Commission's report would show that the Commission had taken every effort to collect the documentary evidence by pursuing the Collector, Tahsildar and the concerned J.M.F.C. to refer the record of criminal cases. Further, since the arrest warrants were claimed to have been issued under the signature of the same Tahsildar, the Commission on its own took efforts to send the photocopies of the disputed warrant alongwith certain other documents which in the opinion of the Commission, were in the nature, which can be called as "undisputed documents". The Commission further itself compared the signatures in the same line, as provided by section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and concluded that even a layman could infer that the signatures are totally different.
28. In all these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Commission has taken any hyper-technical stand or applied the touchstone of the test of beyond reasonable doubt in the present cases.
[H] Appreciation of Evidence :
29. The report of Justice Palkar Commission shows that it has divided all the disputed cases in logical groups. One group related to the cases in which the claims were based either on conviction or otherwise detention in custody. Another group was regarding underground freedom fighters. The third group was in cases based on warrants of arrest.
30. So far as general reasons given by Justice Palkar Commission applicable to cases based on arrest warrant is concerned, the same are contained in part VIII of Volume I of the Report. It would show that on behalf of the petitioner in Public Interest Writ Petition, Advocate Mr. N.L. Jadhav and on behalf of some of the claimants i.e. the present petitioners, Advocate Mr. Andhale were appearing. The Commission took into account the argument of Advocate Mr. Jadhav that the then Tahsildar of Patoda i.e. Mr. Mir Moinnuddin Ali Khan could not have issued the warrants, he being the Executive Magistrate. The Commission, however, accepted the argument of Mr. Andhale that as during the relevant period, it was the duty of the Executive Magistrate to maintain law and order, the Tahsildar in his capacity as Executive Magistrate was competent to issue warrant of arrest. The report would further show that there was a practice where the Tashildar used to send copies of the arrest warrants to the concerned Police Station, to the District Collector, District Superintendent of Police and to the Judicial Magistrate in the District. The Commission has therefore called the record of the Tahsildar and of all the concerned authorities. It was found that the record of the Tahsildar, Patoda was consigned to the Record Office of the Collector, Beed on 9.6.1988. When the Commission asked the Tahsildar for record, it was also communicated that the record has been deposited with the Collector and therefore, it was not available with him. The Commission therefore expressed astonishment as at the time of processing applications for grant of pension, the Tahsilar casually endorsed verification of photocopies of warrants even in absence of record.
31. The Commission was required to examine 32 cases wherein the warrants were claimed to have been issued. The Commission therefore tallied dates given in Fasli year to the English calender dates. It took into consideration the outward numbers and the dates as given in the disputed photocopies of the warrants. The Commission has analysed all the 32 cases with reference to the outward numbers and date of Fasli year and compared the same to the outward number corresponding to the English dates. In some of the cases, the Commission found that the outward number was greater than the outward number of the warrants which were claimed to have been issued later. In some of the cases, the difference in outward number was found to be very small though the time span between the outward numbers was long, which was not probable. The details of the reasons given at page no.57 of Volume I of the Report would show that the photocopies of the certified copy of the arrest warrants were clearly suspicious documents.
32. As already pointed out the Commission has called for the original files concerning the warrants. In this file, the signatures of then Tahsildar Mir Moinnuddin Ali Khan were found, on various other documents, placed in the file in usual course of business. The Commission, therefore, held the signatures on such documents as the undisputed signatures of the said Tahsildar. The documents alongwith the copies of the disputed arrest warrants were sent to the Handwriting Expert. The Expert's opinion was that the signatures did not tally. The Commission also remarked that a layman upon comparison can come to the same conclusion.
33. Mr. V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the present petitioners at any time had agreed that the documents which were sent for verification by the expert for comparison of the signature of the Tahsildar with the signature on the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrants. Therefore, according to him, branding some documents as undisputed documents by Justice Palkar Commission is wrong. The report however indicates that the majority of the claimants were not ready to co-operate with the Commission. The Commission has also expressed disgust as the claimants even did not bother to give translation of the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant, which were in Urdu. It is further noted that the majority of the claimants took contradictory stands firstly, in asking for cross- examination of the petitioners in Public Interest Petition but refusing to offer themselves for cross-examination. In the situation, Justice Palkar Commission searched for the documents and Office notes in the very same files concerning the warrants, purported to be under the signature of the very same Tahsilar Mr. Mir Moinuddin Ali Khan. The files were from the public authorities, which were preserved in usual course of business and, therefore, comparison of those signatures with the signatures found on the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrants cannot be called as unreasonable or arbitrary exercise.
34. Besides this, the Commission examined independently each and every case of the claimant which included the present petitioners.
35. It would be useful to summarise the exercise carried out by the Commission alongwith the summary of its findings as regards each of the case.
36. Before embarking upon the exercise of examining the appreciation of evidence, made by Justice Palkar Commission, in individual cases, it would be useful to first take into consideration as to which of the material was appreciated by Justice Palkar Commission. The Commission perused the original files leading to grant of the pension.
37. As per the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1995 a process was defined for considering the claim of the claimant for grant of pension to the freedom fighters. It was based on the ratio of Mukund Lal Bhandari's case (cited supra).
38. As per the process, an application was required to be made to the Zilla Gaurav Samiti (District Honour Committee) alongwith the necessary documents. Those documents included a certificate-cum-affidavit from atleast two freedom fighters certifying that the claimant had worked as an underground activist in the cases where underground work was carried on by any individual. In cases of a person claiming pension on the basis of the arrest warrants (i) A certificate from the concerned Officer that the warrant was issued and (ii) A certified copy of the Court record to show that the Court has declared the claimant as an absconder and (iii) A notice if any published during the relevant period that the claimant had absconded, were required to be placed.
39. District Honour Committee, was required to scrutinize the documents and take decision for recommendation of the pension. The District Collector, being the Secretary of the Committee was required to put his own remarks on the said file which was required to be placed before the High Power Committee at the State level. The High Power Committee was required to again take into consideration the merit of the case and accordingly recommend to State Government the grant or refusal of the pension.
40. The report of Justice Palkar Commission shows that it has called all the files of the disputed cases wherein the documents as well as the remarks of the District Honour Committee, Collector and High Power Committee recommendations were found. Justice Palkar Commission examined these files. Further, the claimants / petitioners had made their statements on oath before the earlier Mane Committee which was appointed by this Court in Public Interest Petition no. 2619 of 2002. Justice Palkar Commission took into consideration the contents of those statements made on oath. The signatures finding place on the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant were also compared and thereafter Justice Palkar Commission gave its finding or recommendations to the State Government for withdrawal or confirmation of the benefits granted to the claimants.
[I] Warrants in File no. 205/1357 Fasli outward no.209 dated 24 Isfandar 1357 equivalent to 24.01.1948.
41. As regards File no. 205/1357 Fasli outward no. 209 dated 24 Isfandar 1357 equivalent to 24.1.1948, there are 11 petitioners before us. The photocopies of the certified copy of the warrants in all these cases show that the cases were pertaining to an incident dated 12 Isfandar 1357 Fasli. It is described that on that day, number of "Congress gundas" had gathered near village Mouje Warzadi in a field called as "Kadhai". When the Police raided the said camp and arrested about 500 people, at that time, some other people as well as the Police of Union of India fired over the Police and those arrested peoples fled from the spot. The names of those persons who fled from the spot were given in the said alleged photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant. In this background, it would be useful to take into consideration the appreciation of evidence made by Justice Palkar Commission in each of the case.
(I) Writ Petition no. 2114 of 2008 - Shri. Devrao Kisan Lad
42. The petitioner was granted pension on the basis of the photocopy of the certified copy of the warrant. The true copy was not even signed. It was the photocopy of the certified copy claimed to have been issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Gevrai Court on 25.9.1990. When at the time of processing his application for pension, the document was sent to the District Collector, Beed, he forwarded the said document to the Judicial Magistrate at Gevrai. The J.M.F.C. reported that the original record was not available but according to the J.M.F.C. the copy sent appeared to have been issued to one Advocate V.T. Chavan. In another report, the J.M.F.C. had reported that the original warrant may be with the Tahsildar. The Commission took into account two different affidavits filed by the petitioner and his statement before the Mane Committee. The petitioner before Mane Committee has stated that he did not know any person named as Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar, whose affidavit in the original file was filed on his behalf to support his claim that the petitioner has participated in the liberation movement. The Commission further noted that for the first time before it the petitioner filed affidavit claiming that he was absconding for 13 months. The signature over the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant was only like initials of the person and the Commission found the same entirely different from the signatures found on "undisputed correspondence and Office note signed by the Tahsildar found in the files called from the authorities." The Commission further noted that the difference in the signatures was apparent to the naked eye and is confirmed by the expert opinion. The Commission also noted that in all warrants received from three different sources i.e. the Police Station, Ambajogai, Patoda Tahsil and the J.M.F.C., no warrant tallying with the photocopy was found and, therefore, the Commission opined that the copy is not reliable and recommended that the benefits given to the petitioner be cancelled. (II) Writ Petition no. 2130 of 2008 -Shri. Dagadu Shripati Jogdand.
43. After noting the details about the verification of the photocopy of the arrest warrant in this case, at the time of grant of pension, the Commission noted that during the said process, the Additional Collector had doubted the genuineness of the copy. Rest of the reasoning in this case were also similar to the reasoning given in the case of Mr. Devrao Lad i.e. the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 2114 of 2008.
(III) Writ Petition no.2131 of 2008-Mr. Digambar Someshwar Mule (Died) through his widow Parvatibai Digambar Mule
44. In this case also merely a copy of the original certified copy was placed in the file at the time of processing his application for grant of pension earlier. The signature on the copy was found to be entirely different from the undisputed correspondence and no copy of the warrant was found in the files received from 3 different sources. The Commission in this case also remarked that the document is not reliable.
(IV) Writ Petition no. 2135 of 2008 - Shri. Kashinath Sakharam Kadape
45. At the time of processing the initial application of the petitioner for grant of pension, the Additional Collector has found that the photocopy of the certified copy of the warrant in this case though filed, the original record of the warrant was not available . The Commission in this case also gave a similar finding. Further comparison of the signatures of the Tahsildar on the documents was also made.
(V) Writ Petition no. 2140 of 2008 - Shri. Rambhau Ganpati Raut
46. It was found at the time of processing the application (43) JUD-WP-2114-2008+GROUP that the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant was not having any file number or outward number. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in the circumstances opined that no positive recommendation in his case could be given. The High Power Committee rejected the claim. The Member Secretary directed an enquiry, as there was even doubt as to actually which Court would have issued the certified copy of the document of which a photocopy was claimed to be produced. Thereafter, however, a note was put on the application. A time limit to consider his case was directed by the High Court in petitioner's Writ Petition no. 4838 of 1997. Therefore, on the basis of the verification report appearing in another files, the pension was sanctioned to the petitioner.
Before the Mane Committee, the petitioner has made a statement that though he was absconding, no warrant was issued against him. He has further stated before the Mane Committee that his brother-in-law i.e. Advocate Marotirao Kale has done the entire exercise in respect of making the application. . The Commission further found the similar case as regards the difference in signature of the Tahsildar and, therefore, recommended that the benefit granted to the petitioner be cancelled. (VI) Writ Petition no.2149 of 2008 - Shri. Ashruba Anna Sanap (Died) through his wife Sundarabai Wd/o Ashruba Sanap
47. In his initial application for grant of pension, the petitioner has not stated in his affidavit that any arrest warrant was issued against him. The affidavit recommending his name filed by another freedom fighter namely Uttam Kondiba Sanap had not been signed or sworn. (The spaces in this regard were blank). Advocate Mr. A.M. Jagdale however, has identified the deponent. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti concluded that the copy of the warrant cannot be believed but observed that the Samiti was convinced that the petitioner has taken part in the freedom movement. One Member, however, put a dissenting note. Deceased Ashruba's widow Sundarabai appeared before the Mane Committee. Naturally, she had no personal knowledge about any of the incidents. The Commission in this case also found vast difference between the signatures found in the photocopy of the certified copy and the undisputed document found in the files of the Tahsildar, Patoda and recommended for withdrawal of all the benefits. (VII) Writ Petition no.2163 of 2008 - Mr. Krushnanath Someshwar Mule (Died) through widow Rukhminibai Krushnanath Mule
48. In this case no file number was given over the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant though the outward number 209 dated 24 Isfandar 1357 Fasli was given. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition no. 4361 of 1996 in the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad, as his earlier application was not granted. The High Court had issued direction that his application be disposed of within six months. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not recommend the application, expressing doubt about the genuineness of the copy of the arrest warrant. The Civil Judge Junior Division, Gevrai during the (45) JUD-WP-2114-2008+GROUP process had informed that the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant was issued to one Shri V.T. Chavan, Advocate. In all these circumstances, the pension was granted to the petitioner with effect from 11.8.1995. As regards the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant, the Commission gave a similar finding about the difference in the signatures and recommended that the benefits granted to the petitioner (since deceased) be withdrawn. (VIII) Writ Petition no. 1014 of 2008 - Shri. Ashruba Bhaurao Rakh
49. In his original application made for grant of pension, the petitioner in his affidavit did not make any statement that any arrest warrant was issued against him. In his next application, he had stated on oath that the warrant was issued against him. The photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant attested as a true copy by certain Professor of Marathi was placed on record by him. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti has refused to recommend his name as it found that the original record of the Urdu warrant in his case was not available. Thereafter, the word "not" was scored in different ink and in handwriting. The Chairman Shri Bangar made endorsement as against these changes. The Commission noted that the signature and endorsement of the Chairman is in different ink than the entire proceedings. Upon perusal of the document, the Commission further observed that after all the Members of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti put their signatures, thereafter the Chairman had put his signature, indicating that it was a fit case for recommendation and put his second signature below it. The Collector had remarked that the application did not comply with the Government Resolution, under which the pension was to be granted. Before the Mane Committee, the petitioner made a statement that no warrant was issued against him and he did not participate in any activity relating to the liberation of Marathwada region except providing Bhakri (Bread) to Domri camp residents. In his affidavit filed at the time of grant of the pension however, he had referred various incidents and had sworn that he was required to live away from his house for 9 months. There was a difference in the incidents narrated by him in the original application and the affidavit filed in support of it. The photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant however details that when the Nizam Police had arrested hundreds of people, including the present petitioner, the Police from Union of India had opened firing over the Police and due to which those persons fled away. The photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant was again found to be doubtful for the reasons already forwarded by Justice Palkar Commission. Therefore, withdrawal of benefits were also recommended in his case.
(IX) Writ Petition no.1027 of 2008 - Mr. Trimbak Pandharinath Chate
50. There was no file number given in the said photocopy as compared to the other photocopies produced on record in different cases. Justice Palkar Commission found that the photocopy was endorsed by certain staff of the Gevrai Court, without any authority to make such endorsement. It was further found that 135 names referred in the letters of the Collector as regards the present arrest warrant were not in the copy which according to the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has raised suspicion regarding the genuineness of the copy. Justice Palkar Commission further found in the files two letters written by Civil Judge Shri S.N. Shelke in respect of the same copy of the warrant. In letter dated 21.11.1997 Shri Shelke had communicated that the original record was in his Office while in the earlier letter dated 20.8.1997 he had communicated that the original record was not in his Office. Justice Palkar Commission therefore expressed surprise as to how when the record was not available on 20.8.1997, it was in existence on 21.11.1997. Before the Mane Committee, the petitioner has specifically stated that he had worked as an underground freedom fighter at Kharda camp in Kaij taluka and has not carried any activity in Patoda taluka. The arrest warrant had however recorded a specific incident in Patoda taluka as detailed above. Justice Palkar Commission further examined the school record of the petitioner and found that the petitioner was 10-11 years old during the freedom movement and, therefore, expressed suspicion about the claim of the petitioner. The signatures on the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant were also found to be totally different from the undisputed document signed by the Tahsildar and in all these circumstances, the Commission recommended that the benefits granted to the petitioner be withdrawn.
(X) Writ Petition no.2519 of 2008 - Mr. Pandurang Maruti Khade
51. The same photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant was also placed in the present case by the petitioner. Justice Palkar Commission found that the affidavit filed by the petitioner at the time of making application for grant of pension was the exact copy of other affidavits found in other cases by merely filling-in the necessary blank spaces. Even the copy of the warrant was not found in his file by Justice Palkar Commission. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not recommend the petitioner's case while the Additional Collector, Beed definitely opined that he was not satisfied about the genuineness and truthfulness of the documents submitted by the petitioner, as the copy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant (which may be available at that time) did not bear any file number or outward number and merely had the date of the arrest warrant. Before the Mane Committee, the petitioner has stated that no warrant was issued against him. However, uncertified photocopy of the warrant was submitted in the file which was processed though it was not available at the time of inspection by Justice Palkar Commission. Upon comparison of the signatures, as detailed above, Justice Palkar Commission concluded that the benefits granted to the petitioner deserves to be withdrawn.
(XI) Writ Petition no.2522 of 2008 - Mr. Lobha Shahaji Patole
52. The petitioner has produced the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant at the time of making application for grant of pension. The said copy was endorsed as true copy by the Assistant Superintendent of Patoda Court. Justice Palkar Commission found that the Assistant Superintendent had no authority or any business to certify the photocopy of the certified copy. Zilla Gaurav Samiti remarked that since the original record was not available and as it could not be stated positively that the case was connected with the Hyderabad Freedom Movement, the Samiti was unable to make any positive recommendation. The Additional Collector remarked that it was a fit case for grant of pension. The remark of the High Power Committee was not found in the file by Justice Palkar Commission.
. In Public Interest Petition, the petitioners therein filed a certified copy of the school record, wherein date of birth of the present petitioner was shown as 9th June, 1946. Admittedly, the Hyderabad Freedom Movement had taken place in the year 1947-1948. The petitioners in Public Interest Petition therefore claimed that the present petitioner/claimant could not have taken part in the said freedom movement as he was merely a toddler. The present petitioner claimed that the said certificate is false. He had filed affidavit before Justice Palkar Commission, a copy of which is filed in the present Writ Petition. He had sworn that he was not admitted to any school and is an illiterate. Therefore, there could not have been any certified copy of the school record. The petitioner however has not produced any evidence in respect of his date of (50) JUD-WP-2114-2008+GROUP birth. Therefore, Justice Palkar Commission issued summons to the Headmaster of the concerned Zilla Parishad school, calling upon him to produce the relevant register. The certified copy of the school record shows that petitioner-Lobha was admitted to the school. . Summons was also issued by Justice Palkar Commission to the concerned Education Officer to produce the said record. Ultimately, the Headmaster of the school submitted a report that pages at serial no. 14 to 39 of the relevant original register were torn, which contained entry of the name of the petitioner-Lobha. The Education Officer has also obtained a detailed report from the Headmaster, namely, Raghunath Kale during the relevant period. The report shows that said Headmaster was beaten by the members of the Village Education Committee on 26.01.2005. He sought transfer and was sent on deputation from 27.01.2005. In his absence, Smt. Kawade was incharge and during her regime the pages containing serial no. 14 to 39 were torn and the entries caused to disappear. The said Incharge Headmaster had issued certificate to petitioner-Lobha that there is no entry of his date of birth in the school record. The incharge Headmaster also refused to hand over the charge and had filed a false complaint against the Headmaster. When he re-joined on 12.07.2007, he found the destruction of the pages from the record and had therefore made a report to the Education Officer. In the situation, Justice Palkar Commission observed that the only person interested in tampering with the record was petitioner-Lobha as the certified copy of his school record containing his date of birth was mentioned in the said entry, the certified copy of which was already filed in the High Court in Public Interest Petition. Justice Palkar Commission further observed that as the date of birth of the petitioner was 09.04.1946, he was just a toddler during the freedom movement of Hyderabad. Further, the signatures over the warrant finding on the photocopy of the certified copy of the warrant and the undisputed document signed by the very same Tahsildar being found different, the Commission recommended for withdrawal of the benefits granted to the petitioner.
[J] Warrants bearing File No. 21 Outward No.270 dated 15 Bahman 1357 Fasli corresponding to 15.12.1948
53. These warrants relate to the incident dated 15 Bahman 1357 Fasli. It shows that at village Mazrapur in Patoda taluka, some Congressmen were taking a march with the Congress flag with them. The Police, therefore, arrested those peoples. However, as the Police force was very less, all those Congress people fled away from the spot. In this situation, the scrutiny of the appreciation of evidence made by Justice Palkar Commission in this regard is as under:- (I) Writ Petition no. 2109 of 2008 - Shri. Anna Paraji Khatal
54. The photocopy of the certified copy of the warrant was attested as a true copy by the Headmaster of Zilla Parishad High School. The original file called by Justice Palkar Commission showed that there was report of the Tahsildar dated 12.11.1997 that the original record regarding the warrant was not available alongwith cases of 45 persons of similar nature. The Tashildar has reported to the Collector on 22.02.1997 that the original record was already submitted to the Collector Office. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti remarked that the copy of the warrant cannot be relied and was not in a position to make positive recommendation. The High Power Committee had ultimately sanctioned the claim of the petitioner. Before the Mane Committee, the petitioner made a statement that he has attended one meeting held by Wamanrao Vaze and he ran away from the meeting. Justice Palkar Commission found that the signature over the photocopy of the certified copy of the warrant was entirely different from the signatures found in the undisputed correspondence and Office note signed by the same Tahsildar. Similar observations that "even to the naked eye, the difference is apparent" were made. Therefore, Justice Palkar Commission recommended for withdrawal of the benefits granted to the petitioner.
(II) Writ Petition no. 2118 of 2008 - Shri Ashruba Bapu Khatal ;
(III) Writ Petition no.2128 of 2008- Smt. Sundarabai Bhagwan Rakh ; (IV) Writ Petition no. 2137 of 2008 - Shri. Sundar Nivrutti Sanap ; (V) Writ Petition no. 2142 of 2008 - Shri Babu Namdeo Sanap ; AND
(VI) Writ Petition no. 2143 of 2008 - Shri Dhanaji Ranju Mane
55. The name of the present petitioners were included in the list of 45 persons as referred in Writ Petition no. 2109 of 2008. Similar exercise during the grant of pension claim was carried. Dis- believing the photocopy of the certified copy of the warrant, Justice Palkar Commission also recommended for withdrawal of the benefits granted to the above five (5) petitioners. (VII) Writ Petition no. 2129 of 2008 - Smt. Bhagirathibai Maruti Sanap
56. Zilla Gaurav Samiti has unanimously rejected the claim of Bhagirathibai. The High Power Committee also rejected her claim as no necessary documents were filed. The original record was not available with the Office of the Tahsildar, Patoda. The High Power Committee thereafter reconsidered her case and sanctioned pension on 18.01.2000. As the case entirely depended upon copy of the certified copy of the warrant, Justice Palkar Commission, for the reasons already forwarded, disbelieved the claim. (VIII) Writ Petition no. 2523 of 2008 - Vitthal Madhavrao Nagargoje
57. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not give any positive recommendation as neither the original record of the warrant was available nor any reliable certified copy of the warrant was placed. The District Collector called for verification report from Tahsildar, Patoda which was annexed with list of 45 similarly situated persons. The Tahsildar vide his report dated 12.11.1997 submitted that the original record was not traceable in his Office. The verification was done from the copy itself. The High Power Committee accepted the claim. The petitioner made a statement on oath before the Mane Committee, wherein he has stated that he had attended the camp at Domri. In the situation, the Commission appreciated the difference in the signatures over the photocopy of the certified copy of the arrest warrant and recommended for the withdrawal of the benefits granted to the petitioner.
[K] Warrants in File no. 21/2 of 1357 Fasli Outward No. 214
58. In all 16 Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioners, who had claimed that arrest warrants were issued against them. A copy of the photocopy of the arrest warrant filed in each of the Writ Petition shows that the Tahsildar purportedly had alleged that some "Congress Goondas" were making poisonous propaganda and were obstructing the official work of the Government, and, therefore, these people should be arrested. The names of these persons were given in the copy of the photocopy of the arrest warrant. (I) Writ Petition no. 2106 of 2008- Babasaheb Ashruba Bangar
59. Justice Palkar Commission perused the file relating to the grant of pension to the petitioner. It found that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has remarked that since the copy of the warrant from which the copy presented before it was filed was not issued on payment of fees, as such it was not issued in regular course of business. Yet, the Samiti recommended his case. The Member Secretary/Additional Collector however, dissented from the recommendation. The High Power Committee however accepted the recommendation and sanctioned the pension.
60. Justice Palkar Commission found discrepancy in the statement of the petitioner recorded by Mane Committee and the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Commission. Before the Mane Committee the petitioner stated that he was 12-13 years old at the time of the liberation movement and had attended one meeting organized by Mr. Wamanrao Waze and, therefore, warrant was issued against him. In the affidavit however, he has added certain other incidents and has even stated that the children aged about 4-6 years were also working in the freedom movement. The signature on the copy of the certified copy of the undisputed documents was found to be totally different and, therefore, the Commission recommended the withdrawal of the pension granted to the petitioner. (II) Writ Petition no. 2107 of 2008 - Sarjerao Madhavrao Bangar
61. The photocopy of the true copy attested by one Special Executive Magistrate of the purported arrest warrant was filed by the petitioner. The Collector, Beed had sent the said copy to the Police Inspector, Ambajogai and the list of 60 persons, whose names were found in the same copy. The Police Inspector replied on 3.10.1997 that out of the list of 60 persons, the copy contained the names of 27 persons which included the name of the present petitioner. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti remarked that copy of the arrest warrant cannot be relied upon. However, the Samiti remarked that it was convinced about the participation of the petitioner in the freedom movement and recommended his case. The Additional Commissioner however, did not agree with the said recommendation. The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation.
. The Commission appreciated the statement made by the petitioner before the Mane Committee and in the affidavit filed before it and ultimately, by making similar observations regarding difference in the signatures, recommended for withdrawal of the pension.
(III) Writ Petition no. 2112 of 2008 - Dnyanoba Pandurang Sanap (IV) Writ Petition no. 2117 of 2008 - Nana Hari Surwase (V) Writ Petition no. 2122 of 2008 - Dnyanoba Dagadu Agam (VI) Writ Petition no. 2123 of 2008 - Ramrao Ashruba Bangar (VII) Writ Petition no. 2153 of 2008 - Sarjerao Sahebrao Bawane (VIII) Writ Petition no. 2156 of 2008 - Sanjay Dhondiba Mane (IX) Writ Petition no. 2164 of 2008 - Namdev Digambar Bangar (X) Writ Petition no. 2165 of 2008 - Maruti Tukaram Bangar
62. The cases of the petitioners are covered by list of 60 names which was sent to the Police Station, Ambajogai as is observed in Writ Petition no. 2107 of 2008. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti, though it refused to rely on the copy of the arrest warrant, remarked that it was satisfied about the participation of the petitioners in the freedom movement. The Additional Commissioner did not agree with the same and the High Power Committee accepted the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. The Commission observed that the report of the Police Inspector, Ambajogai that out of 60 names given in the list, only 27 persons find their names in the warrant which strengthened the doubt about the genuineness of the warrant and, therefore, recommendation to withdraw the pension was made in these cases also.
(XI) Writ Petition no. 2141 of 2008 - Sukhdev Daula Shinde
63. The case of the present petitioner was also included in the list of 60 persons regarding which doubt was expressed by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. Before the Mane Committee, the petitioner made a statement that he was not aware as to whether any warrant was issued against him though he relied over the photocopy of the arrest warrant in his application.
(XII) Writ Petition no. 2144 of 2008 - Maruti Dada Wanve
64. In the original file, the affidavits sworn by two freedom fighters were found, wherein the space meant for writing the name of the claimant was left blank. Before the Mane Committee, the petitioner stated that he does not know the freedom fighter's whose affidavits were filed by him. He further submitted that one Mr. Jagdale has prepared his application and, therefore, he was not aware what documents were filed. Similar observations regarding names of 60 persons and difference in the signatures were made by the Commission and withdrawal of the benefits was recommended in his case also.
(XIII) Writ Petition no. 2146 of 2008 - Shankar Sambhaji Jagtap
65. Besides the discrepancy of 60 names the petitioner before the Mane Committee had undertaken to produce the certified copy of the warrant within 15 days but failed to do so. The discrepancy in his statement before the Mane Committee and in the affidavit filed before the Commission regarding his staying away from the house for six (6) months or thirteen (13) months was appreciated by the Commission and by making similar observations regarding the difference in the signature on the copy of arrest warrants, the Commission recommended withdrawal of the pension in his case also.
(XIV) Writ Petition no. 2147 of 2008 - Vitthal Ashruba Sonwane
66. The case of the present petitioner was also included in the list of 60 persons regarding whom the doubt was expressed by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. Before the Commission he had improved his version by making a new statement that he was required to live away from his house for 13 months. In this case also, therefore, on the similar grounds, recommendation for withdrawal of the pension was made by the Commission.
(XV) Writ Petition no. 2148 of 2008 - Tulshiram S/o Gahininath Bangar
67. Beside the problem of addition of names of 60 persons in the copy of the warrant, the petitioner has stated before the Mane Committee that during the freedom movement he had not attained the age of understanding and had obeyed the orders of his elders. Before the Commission in the affidavit for the first time, he had sworn that he was absconding for 13 months. In view of these facts and dis-similarity in the signatures, the Commission recommended the withdrawal of pension granted to him. (XVI) Writ Petition no. 2152 of 2008 - Raosaheb S/o Rambhau Bangar
68. In view of the copy of the photocopy of the warrant, Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not believe the same, but remarked that it was convinced about the participation of the petitioner in freedom movement. The Additional Collector, however, dissented from the same. The High Power Committee, however, sanctioned the application. Before the Mane Committee, the petitioner stated that he did not know whether any warrant was issued against him. He further stated that he was aged about 12-13 years during the relevant period. In all these circumstances and also due to the dis- similarity in the signatures on the copy of the warrant and the other signatures of the Tahsildar, the Commission recommended withdrawal of the benefits in this case also. [L] Comments on merit :
69. Mr. Dixit, learned senior Counsel, emphatically submitted that he fails to understand as to how Justice Palkar Commission branded some documents as "found to be undisputed documents" bearing the signature of the then Tahsildar of Patoda. He further submits that no opportunity to cross-examine the expert who had opined about the difference in the signature was given to the petitioner. He further pointed out that the concerned Judge has even sent a letter which was found in some original files called from Tahsil Office. In view of these facts, according to Mr. Dixit, the appreciation of evidence made by Justice Palkar Commission is not proper.
70. The perusal of the reasoning given by Justice Palkar Commission however, would find that the Commission has taken every care of examining each of the individual cases from every angle. When dispute about the date of birth was there, exercise to call the original record was carried out. It was taken to the logical end even by calling the report from the higher authorities like Education Officer etc. It should be noted that the petitioners or some of them who had participated in the proceedings had blown hot and cold and did not co-operate with the Commission. In the circumstances, Justice Palkar Commission took certain documents containing the signature of the very same Tahsildar in the same file and sent those documents for comparison of the signature thereon with the signature found on the photocopy of the certified copy of the warrant. Further, Justice Shri Palkar himself compared the signatures and opined that even to the naked eye, the difference in the signatures is apparent. The Commission also took into consideration the contradictory statements made by the concerned Judge Mr. Shelke in his two letters about the availability of the record in the Court at the time of processing the original application of the petitioner.
[M] General conclusions of Justice Palkar Commission:
71. In Volume No. III-B part IV, the Commission had given concluding remarks regarding each group of the cases. It had taken into consideration the ratio of Mukund Lal Bhandari as well as Gurdial Singh's case cited supra. It has noted that while initially it was claimed that in each of the incident, about 50-60 persons were involved, it was later on increased to 80-90. Further, a particular format of affidavit to be sworn by the freedom fighter recommending the claim of the individual claimant was made ready. Addition or alteration in the affidavit were not initialed by anybody. The case of one person named as Mukta Bapu Dhus was supported by the affidavit by the freedom fighter. The affidavit was drafted as if the said Mukta was a woman, while in fact, the claimant was a male. In file no. 103 while the applicant claimed to be the widow of the freedom fighter, the affidavit was sworn to the effect that Dwarkabai herself was the freedom fighter. She even received the Sanmanpatra and the pension as a freedom fighter and not as a widow of the freedom fighter. In view of these circumstances, the Commission observed as under:
"These cases lead to an irresistable inference that the affidavits were filed by the claimants and the supporting freedom fighters without having least regard for the truth of the contents. Had the supporting freedom fighters slightest regard for truth, they would have never asserted that this woman who did not claim to be freedom fighter in her individual capacity had taken part and was involved in the incidents stated in the affidavit."
72. The Commission further found that the Naib Tahsildar/Awaal Karkoon who had put his stamp to show that affidavits were sworn before him did not take any care to find whether blanks were filled in or whether there were initials where some words were scored. Therefore, the Commission has drawn an inference that the blank affidavits were typed, stamp was put and thereafter the name of the claimants were added. The Commission further noted that filing of these affidavits indiscriminately led to the observation in two cases by Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the High Power Committee that enquiry should be conducted as to under what circumstances, the affidavits were sworn. However, the remarks were thereafter suppressed and no enquiry was held and even these two cases were ultimately recommended for grant of pension. Further, Justice Palkar Commission found that even when some cases were rejected once, twice or thrice, there were practically having no new material on record still, later-on, the recommendations were made. In such situation, even the persons who were either toddlers or not even born at the time of freedom movement, were granted pension. In the circumstances, Justice Palkar Commission was required to make the following observations :-
"The Commission feels it really unfortunate that the image of freedom fighters was tarnished. The freedom fighters who were convicted and sentenced in the freedom movement actively supported false and fraudulent claims. There was some systematic and planned strategy employed to place fake and fabricated warrants in the files of Tahashil Office Patoda, Police Station Ambajogai, and the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Gevrai. The Superintendent of Police Beed district has categorically stated that the record of all the police station is destroyed, still Ambajogai Police Station produced warrants and its copies signed as true copies issued by Police Inspector Ambajogai which were not officially certified as true copies as per the procedure prescribed.
All this led to perpetuation of fraud. It was really disgusting for the Commission when such facts and circumstances were revealed while scrutinizing the evidence."
73. In view of all these facts even considering the cases of the petitioners, on preponderance of probabilities, the conclusion arrived at by Justice Palkar Commission cannot be termed either as arbitrary or unreasonable.
[N] Conclusion :
74. From the above discussion, it is clear that the Apex Court in its plenary jurisdiction had appointed Shri Justice A.B. Palkar (since deceased) to enquire into the genuineness of the claims of the petitioners that they were freedom fighters. The State Government as per the direction, merely issued a Government resolution to that effect. Therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable in the present case. Further, though the Apex Court did not issue any guidelines as to which procedure should be adopted by Justice Palkar Commission, the Commission gave more than reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to place their respective cases before it. The principles of natural justice were not only followed in letter and spirit, but endeavour was made to scrutinize the cases of each of the claimants from every possible angle to take the case to the logical conclusion e.g. suo-motu search for record of birth in necessary cases.
75. Though some of the petitioners did not co-operate with the Commission in making themselves available for cross- examination, and though the Commission had earlier put a note of caution that the adverse inference in such circumstances may be drawn, ultimately no adverse inference was drawn and record of each of the case was appreciated by the Commission.
76. In view of these facts, the Writ Petitions deserve to be dismissed. All the Writ Petitions are therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs. Rule is hereby discharged accordingly.