The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Shiv Sena MLA Ravindra Dattaram Waikar, in which he alleged that the State Government had unfairly allocated funds. The court stated that the Doctrine of Wednesbury Unreasonableness is not applicable in this case.

The petitioner, who won an election in 2019, is raising a concern about what they perceive as unfair treatment by the State of Maharashtra in distributing government funds. They claim that these funds are distributed unequally among various constituencies for the purpose of improving infrastructure and providing essential civic services in slum areas located within those constituencies.

In a verdict delivered by a Division Bench consisting of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Rajesh S. Patil, it was emphasized that the decision to approve and allocate funds for various projects in different localities is an administrative task guided by the State's policies. The judicial review of such administrative decisions can only be conducted by employing the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" doctrine. This doctrine is applicable only when there is adequate evidence presented to the court, allowing it to assess the reasonableness and fairness of the government's decision through a comparative analysis.

The Bench concluded that the assertion claiming arbitrariness and impermissible discrimination by the State Government in approving various projects in different localities lacks validity and is without foundation.

In this case, the Petitioner put forth the argument that there exists a fund known as the "Maharashtra Local Development Fund," which has the primary objective of promoting the development of infrastructure in local areas. The Petitioner claimed that these funds are distributed to Members of the Legislative Assembly in the State of Maharashtra and that the allocation is made equally to all elected representatives, whether they are Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the State Legislative Council (MLC).

The Petitioner further contended that the respondents had allocated a sum of Rs. 11,420.44 Lakhs for the Slum-dwellers Re-allocation and Rehabilitation Plan for the year 2022-23, distributed across various constituencies represented by MLAs and MLCs. Additionally, it was argued that Rs. 26,687.2 Lakhs were allocated for the "Development of Slums in Other than Backward Class."

The petitioner argued that there was a significant disparity in the allocation of funds for the development of slums in constituencies represented by the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) as compared to the constituencies represented by the petitioner. The petitioner asserted that in his constituency, there were multiple slum areas in dire need of essential civic amenities. However, he and other members of the opposing political party were denied access to these funds. This, in the petitioner's view, amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory allocation without any reasonable basis.

In light of these concerns, the petitioner sought a court directive to the State Government, requesting that funds be allocated in an equitable manner for the execution of the mentioned plan. The objective was to provide basic infrastructure facilities to develop slums in areas not classified as backward class regions. The petitioner contended that such an allocation should be made without discrimination and in an equal proportion across all constituencies.

After evaluating the arguments and submissions, the High Court observed that, in a general sense, the allocation of funds by the State Government appeared to have a reasonable correlation with the number of works that were approved. The documentation presented did not indicate that, even when fewer works were sanctioned, there was an excessive allocation of funds. This assessment applied similarly to the documents at Exh.B-1 and C-1. Therefore, based on these documents, the High Court did not find any evidence of arbitrariness or impermissible discrimination on the part of the State Government in their allocation of funds.

The Court noted that the submissions made by the Advocate General were valid. If there is a need to assess the transparency and fairness of the process of sanctioning different works in various constituencies, it is essential to provide comprehensive and specific material that enables a meaningful comparison between different areas. In the absence of such detailed and relevant information, it becomes challenging for the Court to make a thorough evaluation of the process.

The Court emphasized that the necessary material for such an examination was not present before them, and it had not been presented by the petitioner. In light of the absence of adequate material, the Court determined that there was no cause to delve into the broader question of how the allocation of State funds to members of the legislative assembly and legislative council should be conducted in a manner that ensures fairness and transparency in such matters. Therefore, the Court decided to leave this larger issue open for future consideration.

In accordance with the findings and considerations mentioned, the High Court decided to dismiss the petition.

Case: Ravindra Dattaram Waikar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors, WRIT PETITION (L) NO.4223 OF 2023.

Read/Download Order: Ravindra Dattaram Waikar Vs.The State of Maharashtra and Ors.