STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus RAGHUNATH GAJANAN WAINGANKAR

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 365 · Decided: 06-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

ST ATE 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 of the case-Recommendations of Zilla Gaurav Samiti/Committee 
for grant of pension-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 of the 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 of grant of pension 
to the respondent could have been determined-Hence, the judgment of the 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 of India & Ors., [1993) Suppl. 3 sec A 
2 and Gurdial Singh

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