Judgment B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1] Considering the nature of controversy, we have taken up the petitions for final hearing by issuing Rule & making it returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Accordingly, we have heard the respective Counsel. The arguments advanced are in the backdrop of judgments/orders passed by three different Division Benches here and as such, our attention has not been drawn to any individual or specific challenge. Thus, we are considering the challenge as presented. 2] The petitioners claiming to be a freedom fighters, who allegedly participated in the freedom struggle against the regime of the erstwhile Nizam, assail the orders by which their pension has been discontinued. The State Government accepted the report submitted by Hon. J. Palkar (Retd.) Committee and has passed the impugned orders. The petitioners had applied for Freedom Fighter's pension in accordance with the Government Resolutions dated 5th September, 1992 and 4th July, 1995. 3] All the petitioners claim was as an underground volunteers whose cases found favour with the District Honour Committee which recommended the claim of the petitioner. The proposals were, in turn, approved by the High Power Committee and the State Government then had sanctioned the freedom fighters' pension to them. 4] Two persons viz. Shri Ajit Murlidhar Deshmukh and Bhaurao Dagadu Paralkar approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 2619 of 2002 in the Public Interest Litigation in which, it was alleged that there are many bogus freedom fighters in Beed District, who were illegally granted pension. This Court, by an interim order appointed a three member Inquiry Committee to hold an inquiry. Said Committee, submitted a report stating that out of 354 freedom fighters from Beed District, 349 were bogus. Some of the persons claiming to be freedom fighters applied for intervention in the said Writ Petition. Their applications having been rejected, they approached the Hon. Apex Court & the Apex Court granted them liberty to file writ petitions challenging the report of the inquiry committee. 5] Writ petitions filed accordingly by such Freedom fighters and the said writ petition No.2619 of 2002 were heard together. The writ petition filed in public interest was rejected and the writ petitions filed by the freedom fighters were allowed and the report of the inquiry committee was rejected. 5] Writ petitions filed accordingly by such Freedom fighters and the said writ petition No.2619 of 2002 were heard together. The writ petition filed in public interest was rejected and the writ petitions filed by the freedom fighters were allowed and the report of the inquiry committee was rejected. Special Leave Petitions cam to be filed by the petitioners in PIL & the Hon. Apex Court by its judgment dated 22nd August, 2005 , reported at (2005) 7 SCC 605 – BhauraoDagdu Parlkar vs. State of Maharashtra, in paragraph 21, issued the following directions:- “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 necessary 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 Samitee, High Power Committee and the Committee appointed by the High Court shall be examined by the Commission before issuing notice to the individual applicants 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”. 6] Accordingly, the Inquiry Commission submitted a report running into several pages. The Inquiry Commission recommended that the cases of the petitioners were not genuine. Relevant paragraphs containing findings recorded by the inquiry Commission against respective petitioners are annexed by them as one of the exhibits with their writ petitions. As these findings are not urged to be perverse, we have avoided to reproduce the same here. 7] On the basis of the report of the Commission, Government Resolution dated 21st March, 2007 was issued by which the recommendations of the Commission were accepted and the freedom fighters pension granted to 298 persons was withdrawn. 8] The challenge in the present petition is to the decision of the one man inquiry Commission as well as the consequential order of the State Government withdrawing freedom fighters' pension. 8] The challenge in the present petition is to the decision of the one man inquiry Commission as well as the consequential order of the State Government withdrawing freedom fighters' pension. 9] Respective Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had fully complied with the relevant Government Resolutions including the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1995. They submit that the affidavits of the freedom fighters were filed in the format prescribed by the Government & that considering the scope of the inquiry, the petitioners were not expected to adduce any evidence and it was for the Government to verify the claim. They rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of “Guru Dayal Singh Vs. Union of India and others” (2001)8 SCC page 8. He also relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this court in the case of “ TumarakRamji Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra ” 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 735 , which holds that all applications must be processed in terms of the directives laid down in Govt. Resolution dated 4th July, 1995. He also invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 10th March, 1999. He submitted that the Inquiry Commission ought to have examined on oath the members of the committees which recommended the case of the petitioners as also the freedom fighters whose affidavits were produced by the petitioner. Merely because in the affidavits which were already typed, the name of the petitioners were inserted by hand, the affidavits do not become doubtful. He submitted that no opportunity of being heard was given by the State Government before passing the impugned order of withdrawing pension. 10] We have heard the learned counsel AGP Shri Ghute Patil for the respondent State, who produced before us the Commission's Report. 11] The case of the respective petitioner was recommended on the basis of his application supported by an affidavit. They have stated about active participation in the freedom struggle against the regime of Nizam and being underground in the year 1947 and 1948. 12] The case of petitioner Muralidhar Bhaurao Lande in W.P. 6318 of 2010 was taken up as lead matter but our attention has not been invited to peculiar facts or distinguishing feature of any particular matter. But we very briefly note the application of its mind by the Commission. 12] The case of petitioner Muralidhar Bhaurao Lande in W.P. 6318 of 2010 was taken up as lead matter but our attention has not been invited to peculiar facts or distinguishing feature of any particular matter. But we very briefly note the application of its mind by the Commission. It is noted that Madhukar filed application for pension as a underground freedom fighter and before the Commission, in his affidavit dated 11.2.1997, for the first time claimed that he was required to live away from home & did not state that he was working as underground freedom fighter. He relied upon the affidavit of one Maroti Mahadeo Kakde dated 11,2,1997 but said person in his affidavit did not make reference to petitioner as underground freedom fighter. Another affidavit dated 11.2.1997 by one Yogiraj Santaram Raut was also found identical. Improvements in later affidavit dated 16.1.1998 show that first time he was required to stay away from his residence for 4 to 5 months & took education in private School & could not pursue it. Commission notes that this entire portion is added by scoring of some part of affidavit with whitener & it is not initialed. The stereotype affidavit of another freedom fighter Namdeo Balwant Aher is also found prepared by filing in blank spaces in handwriting without any initials or sign. The High Power Committee accepted recommendation due to such affidavits & State Minister Badamrao Pandit had also recommended his case. Secretary of the Committee however pointed out that affidavits mentioned surname as Kashid & not Lande. On 13.4.1999, this petitioner filed affidavits about his surname. Supporting affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne & Anna Eknath Telap are containing same mistakes & use of whitener & handwriting. Before earlier committee viz. Mane Committee, he had stated that he was supplying “bhakri” ie bread to freedom fighters. Earlier he disclosed that he was about 19 years old then but at later stage, he stated that he was only 10 years old. 13] Adv. Girase for petitioner Shivaji in WP. 11716 of 2010 has also attempted tp attack the findings of the Commission. Their the initial application is dated 10.8.1995. He has stated that he has actively participated in freedom struggle in 1947-1948 by remaining underground. At Kharda camp, he worked under guidance of Babasaheb Ganpati Bangar and leadership of Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar. Girase for petitioner Shivaji in WP. 11716 of 2010 has also attempted tp attack the findings of the Commission. Their the initial application is dated 10.8.1995. He has stated that he has actively participated in freedom struggle in 1947-1948 by remaining underground. At Kharda camp, he worked under guidance of Babasaheb Ganpati Bangar and leadership of Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar. Acts disclosed are attacking the police station, burning it, stealing the outposts etc. According to procedure, he has furnished the affidavits which mentions participation between 25.7.1947 to 17.9.1948. All material details therein are filled in in handwriting while the rest of it is typed. In affidavit dated 14.8.1995 filed to explain the delay, period of participation is shown from 1942 to 1947 & thereafter till police action was over. Thus a new period & new names of his alleged leaders are disclosed by him in it. Name of Nivrutti Dhakane is one such name. Affidavits of Dnyanoba & Babasaheb Bangar are typed and contain same material. Name & age of petitioner Shivaji is added to it in handwriting. These affidavits do not show any administration of oath and Dnyanoba & Babasaheb Bangar are shown as executors. Both of them declare that affidavits are true as per their information & belief. Thus, it is not based on personal knowledge. Source of information and grounds of belief are not disclosed. Which particular fact is disclosed due to information gathered & which fact is based on belief is also not mentioned. What can be true to ones belief can not depend upon the information which he receives from a third source. As there is no oath or solemn affirmation backing the alleged revelations, the Commission is right in discrediting the claim of the petitioners. In affidavit dated 29.9.1999, petitioner has added few more names & one of them is Anna Eknath Telap & Sona Rama Jaibaye. We are required to deal with these two persons & Nivrutti or their affidavits in more details little latter. These developments, gradual improvements, initial rejection of his claim by the High Power Committee on 1.12.1997, personal letter by the President of Zilla Committee in his favour with 57 other claimants are all evaluated by the Commission & we do not see any perversity in its approach or findings. These developments, gradual improvements, initial rejection of his claim by the High Power Committee on 1.12.1997, personal letter by the President of Zilla Committee in his favour with 57 other claimants are all evaluated by the Commission & we do not see any perversity in its approach or findings. 14] We find that application of mind & findings of Commission in other matters are on same lines & for similar use of whiteners, handwriting & improvements; the Commission has rightly refused to rely upon the respective affidavits of the respective petitioners or then the supporting affidavits. As there is no effort to show perversity in these findings or conclusions, we do not find it necessary to repeat the same. But we may mention that earlier on three occasions, this Court has accepted the similar findings & conclusions in respective writ petitions. 15] Adv. Shri Nagargoje has urged that name of petitioner in W.P. 6334 of 2010 Ramrao Nivrutti Solukhe does not figure in report of the Commission at all & still his pension is cancelled. AGP Shri Ghute Patil has pointed out that this matter was before the Commission as file case no. 234 ie respondent no. 234. We find that Commission has applied its mind to it at page 387 & 388 of the report. 16] Similarly petitioner Ashruba Rambhau Sonwane in WP 6339 of 2010 had also filed WP 1387 of 2012 on same subject with same grievance & that petition came to be dismissed on 7/5/2012. Hence, second challenge at his instance is not tenable. Said petition, though earlier in point of time needs to be dismissed as barred by resjudicata. 17] Petitioner in WP 7209/2008 Narayan Shankar Waghmode (Case file 231 before the Commission) had died on 18.3.1996 as per death certificate & his affidavit was found sworn on 7.9.1999. The Commission has observed that deponent was identified by Adv. S.N. Kulkarni and facts called for not only an inquiry but also his prosecution. Inspite of this the petition came to be filed. Needless to mention that it deserves to be dismissed summarily with costs. 18] Submission that Commission did not cancel grant of pension to 17 dead persons is not enough to restore the pension of the petitioners as their pension is canceled for valid reasons. Inspite of this the petition came to be filed. Needless to mention that it deserves to be dismissed summarily with costs. 18] Submission that Commission did not cancel grant of pension to 17 dead persons is not enough to restore the pension of the petitioners as their pension is canceled for valid reasons. The Commission could not verify these 17 cases & hence, on account of the death of recipient freedom fighter, no order to his prejudice is passed. Earlier report of Mane Committee became irrelevant after appointment of J. Palkar Commission & hence, invalidity declared by Mane Committees was not relevant. Emphasis on 36 cases of cancellation by Mane committee & validity to those 36 matters by the latter Palkar Commission, ipso facto, can not be an instance of non-application of mind. On the contrary, without anything more, it reveals a conscious approach by latter Commission. 19] Contention of Adv. Nagargoje that Commission prepared its report & forwarded it on 22.2. 2007 & hence, State Government could not have received it on very same date is equally misconceived. There is no requirement that the Commission must prepare its report at place of its sitting ie at Beed. Report prepared or finished at Bombay can be delivered immediately. Moreover, the State Government has accepted the report on 21. 3. 2007. Hence, mention of wrong date or any error in that respect, by itself is not sufficient to vitiate it as preparation & submission of the report by the Commission is not in dispute. 20] Part III of the Report dealing with the procedure followed by the Commission shows that advocates represented freedom fighters. The freedom fighters were given opportunity to enter witness-box and that step was opposed by those who were summoned by alleging prejudiced & biased approach on part of the Commission. In the light of these undisputed facts noted by the Commission, we find that the petitioners have rightly not advanced any arguments on principles of natural justice. 21] AGP Shri Ghute Patil has also demonstrated before us the ingredients needed to be satisfied in terms of the government policy and systematic approach to the controversy by the Commission. This aspect is not in challenge before us. But then, we find that the dispute has been approached in its proper perspective by the Commission. This treatment & the report is already appreciated by this Court on earlier occasion. This aspect is not in challenge before us. But then, we find that the dispute has been approached in its proper perspective by the Commission. This treatment & the report is already appreciated by this Court on earlier occasion. We are not called upon & need not delve more into it. 22] The contention that the report of the J. Palkar Committee has not been accepted by State Government as its acceptance by the Hon. Chief Minister is illegal and not contemplated by the Business Rules & the report must be accepted by the Cabinet for its legal implementation needs evaluations. But when this Court has upheld the findings of Commission on non-entitlement of the respective petitioner, it is obvious that alleged technical error can not be a valid defence and this Court may still refuse to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. It can not be overlooked that while examining a public grievance, the Commission itself is appointed by the Hon. Apex Court. Thus procedural irregularity which does not impinge upon merits of the findings & does not show any consequential prejudice, is not sufficient to restore the pension of petitioners who as a matter of fact are found to be not the freedom fighters. 23] The Maharashtra Government Rules of Business vide Rule 4 lay down that business of the Government shall be transacted in the Department specified in the first schedule and is to be classified/distributed between those departments. Rule 9 mandates that all cases mentioned in second schedule are to be are to be brought before the Council of Ministers constituted under Art. 163 of the Constitution of India. We do not see any entry relevant for the purposes of present controversy in said second schedule. On the contrary, learned AGP has pointed out correctly that issue pertains to General Administration Department & not with any other department. Therefore, as per guidelines 8(1) issued under Rule 15 of the Business Rules, as Hon. Chief Minister is the concerned Minister, decision to accept the report of J. Palkar Commission has been taken by the Hon. Chief Minister. This demonstrates its acceptance by the State Government. 24] All supporting affidavits show same defects which find mention in report of the Commission in part VII. The discussion at pages 45 onwards is very revealing. Commission has found that these persons supporting the claims have filed the affidavits indiscriminately. This demonstrates its acceptance by the State Government. 24] All supporting affidavits show same defects which find mention in report of the Commission in part VII. The discussion at pages 45 onwards is very revealing. Commission has found that these persons supporting the claims have filed the affidavits indiscriminately. Even inconsistencies in the story put forth by petitioner & such affidavits is taken note of. All these are the findings of facts duly reached & not assailed in present petitions. There is no specific or individual grievance made before us & hence we refer to the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaibhay and Anna Eknath Telap, the 3 freedom fighters who supported the cases of the petitioners by way of an illustration. These affidavits are typed & in the typewritten format, the name of the freedom fighter for whose benefit the affidavits are/were to be sworn is kept blank & those details have been subsequently added in handwriting. Moreover, the affidavit of Mr. Jaibhay bears a thumb impression. The affidavit appears to be affirmed before the Avval Karkoon in Tehsil Office, Beed. However, there is no endorsement to the effect that what was stated in the affidavit was read over and explained to said Mr. Jaibhay. The report of the Palkar Committee discloses that the Mantralaya had rejected 2068 claims & therein deponent Nivrutti had filed 1068 supporting affidavits, Anna Telap filed affidavits in 900 such cases whereas Sona Rama Jaybhay filed affidavits in 463 such cases. On plain reading of the original affidavits, the conclusions drawn by the Commission that these affidavits were already typed, that the name of the petitioner has been subsequently added to it & it cannot be relied upon or the reasons recorded by the Commission to support this finding are neither erroneous or perverse. 25] The burden to sustain entitlement to pension & status in such disturbing state of affairs was upon the petitioners & they can not contend that it was for Commission to disprove their entitlement. The standard of proof in such an inquiry has to be preponderance of the probabilities & not of proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. The Commission recorded its findings after extending reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. Hence, there is no procedural irregularity also. The standard of proof in such an inquiry has to be preponderance of the probabilities & not of proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. The Commission recorded its findings after extending reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. Hence, there is no procedural irregularity also. There are no efforts before us to demonstrate any procedural lapse but we find that law as laid down by Hon. Apex Court in “Guru Dayal Singh Vs. Union of India and othes” (supra) and by the Full Bench (supra) of this Court has not been violated in present facts. 26] It is true that the applications for pension are required to be considered in accordance with the Government Resolutions. The Government Resolutions require the petitioners to produce affidavits of two freedom fighters. Here, the said basic documents filed as affidavits are not properly drafted or sworn to enable the law to reach the so called deponent in case any action for perjury etc. is called for. The affidavits produced in the present case are held to be unreliable by a fact finding authority appointed by the Apex Court. We are unable to find any fault with said finding. On the basis of such unreliable so called affidavits of the persons who have filed hundreds of such affidavits, the petitioner was not entitled to freedom fighter's pension. The view of the Commission is correct & once the supporting affidavits are found to be unreliable, it is obvious that the petitioners fail to comply with the ingredients of Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1995. He was also given chance to enter the witness box but it was not availed. 27] The order of the State Government withdrawing petitioners' pension is valid & based on the recommendations of the Commission which are unassailable. We find that no case warranting interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. In somewhat same situation this Court has on 7th May, 2012 dismissed W.P. 1387 of 2012 and one of us (J. Sunil P. Deshmukh) is party to that judgment. WP 954,1020 of 2008 with almost 35 similar matters have been rejected on 15/16.3 2012 by another Division Bench. Writ Petition Nos. 2114, 2130 of 2008 other 33 petitions have been dismissed by a different Division Bench of this Court on 14th October 2011. WP 954,1020 of 2008 with almost 35 similar matters have been rejected on 15/16.3 2012 by another Division Bench. Writ Petition Nos. 2114, 2130 of 2008 other 33 petitions have been dismissed by a different Division Bench of this Court on 14th October 2011. We have perused these judgments also & find that individual or personal challenges have been considered & rejected there. Most probably, therefore there is no such effort made before us. 28] In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. In peculiar facts, we direct each petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 3000/-to the State Government within 8 weeks from today. If the Costs are not paid, State Government is free to recover it as arrears of land revenue from the respective petitioner or his estate & in such other mode/manner as it may deem fit & proper.