Bombay High Court
Mallesham Anjaiyya Yerola vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 October, 2012
Bench: B.R. Gavai, S.P. Deshmukh
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
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.
