BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 22-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 22, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme : 
Grant of pensionary benefits to large number of people under Freedom 
C Fighters Pension Scheme-Writ petition filed on the ground that these grants 
were based on false and bogus claims-Enquiry Committee after elaborate 
analysis of material finding that the claimants were not even born when 
the freedom fight was OIJ or were toddlers at the time of independence-
High Court merely taking sample of five cases and setting aside the writ 
D petitions-Justification of-Held : High Court was not justified in lightly 
interfering with the findings on suppositions and presumptions-Sampling 
cannot be the method for determining the truth or otherwise of the 
allegations or claims made-Each case was required to be individually 
examined-A retired High Court Judge appointed to examine the cases. 
E 
Words and Phrases-'Fraud'-Meaning of-Discussed. 
The writ petition was filed before High Court challenging the grant 
of"Sammanpatra", pensionary and other allied benefits to large number 
of persons in the Beed District of Maharashtra, who were not even born 
F 
or were toddlers when the freedom fight was on or the country got 
independence. The prayer essentially was to hold detailed enquiry and 
to cancel the pensionary benefits and for a direction to recover the 
amounts which had already been paid along with the prayer for initia-
tion of criminal proceedings against the bogus claimants. The allegation 
was that as many as 354 bogus claims have been allowed. 
G 
The High Court taking cognizance of the petitions and the serious 
allegations made therein, constituted a three-member Enquiry 
Committee, which submitted its report that the claims were bogus and 
tainted with fraud. Thereafter, High Court took five sample cases and 
H found that the report of the Enquiry Committee could not be accepted 
774 
•• 
BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR v. STATE 
775 
and the documents produced were sufficient to substantiate the claims A 
. and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions. 
In appeal to this court appellant contended that the approach of 
the High Court in taking up 5 sample cases itself shows that it was not 
adopting the proper course. The report of Committee was submitted. B 
after elaborate analysis of the materials. The High Court should not 
have lightly interfered with the findings on suppositions and presump-
tions. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
Held: I.I. The genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treated with 
reverence, respect and honour. But at the same time it cannot be lost sight 
of that people who had no role to play in the freedom struggle should not 
be permitted to benefit from the liberal approach required to be adopted 
in the case of the freedom fighters, most of whom in the normal course are 
septuagenarians and octogenarians. It baffles one, beyond comprehension, 
when claim is made by a person "'ho was not even born during the freedom 
struggle to be a freedom fighter. 1780-F, G] 
1.2. Some of the beneficiaries were born in 1951 and some in 1955. 
Accepting claims of such persons to be freedom fighters would be 
making a mockery of the scheme, which is intended, for genuine free-
dom fighter. The approach of the High Court is clearly untenable. 
Sampling cannot be the method of determining the truth or otherwise 
of the allegations or claims made. Each case was required to be indi-
vidually examined. On that score alone, the High Court's judgment is 
vulnerable. ]780-H; 781-A, BJ 
Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1993) SC 2127; 
Gurdial Singh v. Union of India, (2001) AIR SCW 3843; Dr. Vim/av. Delhi 
Administration, [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 585; Indian Bank v. Satyam Febres 
(India) Pvt. Ltd, 11996] 5SCC550; SP. ChangalvarayaNaiduv.Jagannath, 
]1994] 1 SCC 1; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors., 12003] 8 
SCC 319; Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. Mis. Shaw Brothers, 11992] l SCC 534 
and Gowrishankar v. Joshi AmbaShankar Family Trust, 11996] 3 SCC 310, 
relied on. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, ]2002] 1 SCC 100; Ram Preeti Yadav v. H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
UP. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311; 
Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. and Another, [2004J 3 SCC 1 and State 
of An~hra Pradesh and Anr. v. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) S SCALE 621, 
referred to. 
B 
c 
Webs

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.