Bombay High Court to Maharashtra: ‘State has wherewithal to take lightning decisions, poll can’t come in way of giving benefits to martyr’s kin’

The court was hearing a plea by Aakriti Sood, the widow of late Major Anuj Sood, which stated that Sood was entitled to the benefits, including monthly allowances, under the policy of the state government as per two Government Resolutions of 2019 and 2020.

On March 14, the bench of Justices Kulkarni and Firdosh P Pooniwalla had asked the state to consider Sood’s plea as a ‘special case’.

Major Sood laid down his life on May 2, 2020, while rescuing civilian hostages from terrorist hideouts. He was awarded Shaurya Chakra.

After a government lawyer sought four-week time to take a decision citing ‘so-called’ administrative difficulties of some higher level officers of its General Administration Department (GAD) being unavailable due to ensuing elections, the bench said the time sought was ‘too long.’

“This is not acceptable. It cannot be delayed for secretarial reasons. You (government) can move proposals overnight and lightning decisions happen, we know that. There should be a positive decision. It will bring laurels to the Chief Minister that he has helped an officer who has sacrificed life for the country,” Justice Girish S Kulkarni-led bench orally remarked.

“You impress upon officers that it is an important decision. It is more important in current times. This kind of proposal should not be even delayed for a day. In fact Maharashtra should be proud of such persons. We should have a large heart. As it is, we are the only state in the country with the word ‘Maha (great or large)’ in it,” Justice Kulkarni told the government lawyer.

Aakriti Sood, through senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni and advocate Sneha S Bhange, had said the family has a house in Maharashtra and always intended to settle in the state and documents showed his willingness to reside in Pune. However, the state’s communication of August, 2020 conveyed that Major Anuj Sood could not be given the benefits as the criteria was that the person should be a domicile of Maharashtra for 15 years or be born in the state.

After the government lawyer on March 28 submitted that the decision could not be taken due to ensuing polls, the bench had expressed disagreement and had said the election code of conduct should not come in the way of the said decision.

On Thursday, Assistant Government Pleader P J Gavhane submitted an April 1 letter by Assistant Secretary of GAD stating that the decision was not taken due to ‘administrative difficulties’ and added that the government, however, was ‘serious’ about the issue.

The bench disagreed and noted in its order, “We are conscious of the fact that the state government has the wherewithal to take lightning decisions in several issues. In comparison, the present issue is a smaller issue for the CM to decide.”

The court asked the government officials to be ‘alive to the petitioner’s case and court orders’ and put up the file before the CM at the earliest and said it expected a decision within a week. The HC will hear the plea next on April 10.