Mallesham Anjaiyya Yerola vs The State Of Maharashtra

     wp5057.12                                                                  1
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH




                                                                   
               WRIT PETITION NO.  5057   OF  2012




                                           
     1. Mallesham Anjaiyya Yerola,
        resident of Goregaon,




                                          
        Tahsil - Goregaon, 
        District - Gondia.

     2. Onkar Mangru Sharnagat,




                                 
        r/o at Post Zangiya, 
        Tahsil - Goregaon,
                    
        District - Gondia.

     3. Mahaprakash Chibansao
                   
        Bijewar, r/o Ghoti, Tahsil
        Goregaon, District - Gondia.

     4. Dilipsingh Mahadeosingh Bais,
      


        r/o Khamari, Tahsil & District -
        Gondia.                              ...   PETITIONERS
   



                 Versus

     The State of Maharashtra,





     through its Secretary,
     Rural Development & Irrigation
     Department, Mantralaya, 
     Mumbai 400 032.                         ...   RESPONDENT





     Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioners.
     Shri N.W. Sambre, GP & Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Additional GP for the 
     respondents.
                           .....




                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:25 :::
      wp5057.12                                                                            2
                                 CORAM :   B.R. GAVAI &
                                           SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,  JJ.

OCTOBER 19, 2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per B.R. GAVAI, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. The petitioners challenge the Government Resolution dated 27.09.2012 by which the State Government has reconstituted the Committees formed under Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP).

3. Shri Parchure, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in pursuance to the earlier Scheme, the petitioners are already elected and not only that but they have already registered a co-operative society. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned Government Resolution which takes away the right of the petitioners and that too without giving any reasons, is unsustainable in law.

4. Shri Sambre, learned GP and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional GP vehemently oppose the petition on the ground that it is a matter of policy of State Government and as such interference is not warranted.

5. We find that nobody can have a vested right to continue in the Committees which are formed under the Government Resolution issued by the State Government. The Committee which is formed is not formed under any statue, the same was formed earlier also under Government Resolution on the basis of policy decision taken by the State Government under Integrated Watershed Management Programme.

6. Insofar as the contention of Shri Parchure, learned counsel that the Government has not given any reasons for changing the policies are concerned, firstly it is not necessary to give any reason in the Government Resolution as to why the policy is changed. Secondly, in the facts of the present case, the contention is de hors of the substance. The reasons are in fact ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:25 ::: wp5057.12 4 given in the Government Resolution as to why policy is changed.

The perusal of para 2 of the preamble of the Government Resolution gives a reason that 75% of the amount spent on Integrated Watershed Management Programme is to be utilised for various works to be carried out in village. It has further stated that the funds made available under Integrated Watershed Management Programme are not sufficient and, therefore, the works to be carried out under Integrated Watershed Management Programme will have to be carried out simultaneously with other works and as such it has been found necessary to have the Sarpanch and Members of Gram Panchayat on the said Committees. Para 3 of the said preamble would also reveal that taking into consideration the nature of the work, it was found appropriate that Sarpanch of the village should be made Chairman of the said Committee. Undisputedly, the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat is elected in a democratic process by an election held under the supervision of the State Election Commission.

7. The scope of interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the policy matters is very limited. Unless the policy is found to be palpably arbitrary or unconscionable or when it discriminates between similar circumstanced persons, it is not possible to interfere with the same. But here this is not the case before us. We do not find any arbitrariness or discrimination, neither do we find the policy to be unconscionable so as to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Writ petition having been found without jurisdiction, it is rejected. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

                    JUDGE                                      JUDGE
                                      *******
     *GS.




                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:25 :::