Bombay High Court
Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla vs The State Of Maharashtra Chief Minister ... on 5 August, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:31431-DB
98.24-pil.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.98 OF 2024
Digitally
signed by
Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla ..... Petitioner
BASAVRAJ
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
GURAPPA PATIL
PATIL Date:
Versus
2024.08.07
17:57:56
+0530
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Owais Pechkar a/w. Mr. Shubham Upadhyay, Ms. Ashi
Kothari and Mr. Fahad Qureshi for the petitioner
Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w. Mr. P. P. Kakade,
Government Pleader, Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional
Government Pleader, Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP and Mr. Jay
Sanklecha, "B" Panel Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 - State
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE : AUGUST 5, 2024
ORAL ORDER (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. Heard learned counsel representing the respective parties.
2. This PIL petition filed by a Chartered Accountant challenges
two schemes introduced by the State of Maharashtra which are
embodied in the Government Resolutions, dated 28 th June 2024
and 9th July 2024.
Basavraj Page|1
98.24-pil.docx
3. The first scheme which is under challenge herein as
embodied in the Government Resolution, dated 28 th June 2024
has been launched for the benefit of women in the State whose
family income does not exceed Rs.2.50 lacs p.a. The scheme is
known as Chief Minister's Beloved Sister Scheme (eq[;ea«kh ek>h
ykMdh cgh.k ;¨tuk ) hereinafter referred to as the "ykMdh
cgh.k ;¨tuk". A perusal of the said scheme reveals that it has
been launched by the State Government to improve the health
and nutrition of the women who are eligible under the said
scheme and also for providing them financial independence. The
Government Resolution states that while launching the said
scheme various factors have been taken into consideration by
the State such as the fact that according to labour force survey
in the State, the employment percentage of men is 59.10%
whereas the percentage of women is 28.70%. The State, thus,
felt the need to improve the financial and health condition of the
women in the State and accordingly, has launched the impugned
scheme.
4. The object of ykMdh cgh.k ;¨tuk is to promote
employment opportunities by providing adequate facilities to the
Basavraj Page|2
98.24-pil.docx
women, to rehabilitate them financially and socially, to make the
women self-reliant and to promote empowerment of women and
girls in the State and further to improve their health and
nutritional status and also that of children dependent on them.
5. The scheme further provides that the eligible woman will
get Rs.1500 p.m. and if under any other scheme such a woman
is getting less than Rs.1500/-, the difference amount shall be
paid to her. One of the conditions of the eligibility is that the
woman should be in the age group of 21 to 60 years and that
she should be married, divorced, widowed or abandoned and
without any support. The scheme clearly provides
disqualification as well for grant of benefits according to which a
woman whose family income exceeds more than Rs.2.50 lacs
and whose family member is an income tax payer will not be
eligible, the woman whose family members are working in the
Government Department/Undertaking/Board/Government of
India or State Government Institutions as regular/permanent
employees/contractual employees or are drawing post-
retirement pension shall also not be eligible. In case a woman is
a beneficiary of more than Rs.1500/- under any other financial
scheme, she will not be eligible. So also in case a family member
Basavraj Page|3
98.24-pil.docx
of a woman is a Chairman/ Director/ Member of Board/
Corporation/ Undertaking of Government will also not be eligible.
It also provides that the woman whose joint family owns more
than five acres of agricultural land or who have four-wheeler
registered in the name of family members, excluding tractor, will
also not be eligible.
6. The other scheme under challenge in this petition as
contained in the Government Resolution, dated 9 th July 2024 is
known as Chief Minister's Youth Employment Skill Training
Scheme [eq[;ea«kh ;qok dk;Z izf'k{k.k ;¨tuk ] (hereinafter referred
to as the "Employment Training Scheme"). The said scheme
has been floated by the State Government having regard to the
need for post-education training to bridge the gap between
education and employment and also to facilitate employment to
the unemployed youth.
7. As per the Employment Training Scheme, the youth holding
qualification such as Class XII, ITI, Diploma and higher
education are eligible to register on-line if they meet the job
requirements. The scheme, as per the Government Resolution,
dated 9th July 2024, is aimed at enhancing the employability of
Basavraj Page|4
98.24-pil.docx
youth by providing direct job training after completing their
education and accordingly, facilitating their employment or
entrepreneurial ventures. The applicants under the said scheme
should be between 18 and 35 years of age and should be
possessed of the aforementioned qualifications, however, those
who are currently pursuing education are not eligible.
8. The Employment Training Scheme further provides that the
duration of current employment training shall be six months and
during this period the eligible candidates will receive a stipend.
The stipend to be made available to Class XII pass candidate is
Rs.6000/- pm., to ITI/Diploma holders - Rs.8000/- pm. and the
candidates having graduate/post graduate qualification, it is
Rs.10,000/- pm. Under this scheme if a trainee is absent for
more than 10% of the total days or more than 10 days, he shall
render himself ineligible for the stipend. The scheme also
stipulates that during the period of scheme if a trainee obtains
permanent or satisfactory employment or self-employment or if
he discontinues training or shows unsatisfactory results, he shall
not remain eligible for training and subsequent stipend. The
scheme also provides registration of certain
establishments/industries which include Small and Medium
Basavraj Page|5
98.24-pil.docx
Enterprises (SMEs) and large industries registered under the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC),
Cooperative Societies or State Cooperatives, Start-ups
registered under the Start-up DPIIT, Urban Cooperative Banks,
Sugar Factories, Milk Processing Units and Cooperative Societies,
Companies established under the Companies Act, 2013 and
Chartered Accountancy Firms, Law Firms, Media, Non-Banking
Financial Companies (NBFCs), Stock Exchanges (NSE/BSE),
Retail, Insurance, Hospitality, Healthcare, Taxation, Logistics,
Tourism etc.
Thus, the schemes which are under question in this PIL
petition, are for the benefit of women whose family income is
below Rs.2.50 lacs p.a. and for the educated unemployed youth
who intends to undergo post-education training with the
establishments as aforementioned.
9. To impeach the impugned schemes the learned Counsel for
the petitioner has raised the following grounds:
(a) The schemes involve huge expenditure at the cost of
tax payers' money and that the State Government
has launched the cash benefit scheme which does not
Basavraj Page|6
98.24-pil.docx
have any rationale. In other words, it is the
submission on behalf of the petitioner that,
"Government is a service provider in exchange of tax"
and hence it should spend public money on other
tasks rather than distributing cash benefits.
(b) The ykMdh cgh.k ;¨tuk promotes class-based
discrimination inasmuch it excludes from its benefits
the women whose family income is more than Rs.2.50
lacs p.a. and also the tax payers and that such tax
payers do not have any say though the taxes are
directly deducted from their salaries which is in
infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(c) Huge expenditure is involved in the scheme which
contributes to the burden on the State Government to
the tune of Rs.7.11 lac crores and that it would have
been more appropriate had the expenditure being
incurred on the schemes, been spent on the
infrastructure development projects.
(d) The Department of Finance of the State Government
had raised concerns but for political considerations
the schemes are being implemented.
Basavraj Page|7
98.24-pil.docx
(e) There has been no demand from the public for such
kind of cash benefit schemes such as the payment for
a scheme of loan waiver made by the farmers which
would check the suicides amongst the farmers. It is
further argued that there are other areas where the
public money should be spent such as development of
infrastructure, educational facilities, checking the
pollution levels and hence instead of spending the
money on these aspects, the cash benefits schemes
have been introduced and that such schemes shall
dampen the natural human abilities/instincts to earn
money through doing hard-work.
(f) The schemes have been introduced keeping an eye on
the impending assembly elections which are due to be
held in October 2024 and also in view of the outcome
of the last Lok Sabha elections.
(g) The impugned schemes amount to corrupt practice in
terms of Section 123 of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 and has been introduced only to lure
the voters which amounts to bribery and undue
Basavraj Page|8
98.24-pil.docx
influence, which are punishable under Section 171B
and 171C of the Indian Penal Code.
10. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been urged by learned
Counsel for the petitioner that the instant PIL Petition deserves
to be allowed and accordingly, the impugned Government
Resolutions, dated 28th June 2024 and 9th July 2024 are liable to
be quashed.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on an order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwini
Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1 and has stated
that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has entertained the said
writ petition, considering the prayer to over-rule the judgment
rendered by two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of S. Subramanian Balaji Vs.State of Tamil Nadu
(2013) 9 SCC 659, instant petition may be entertained and
accordingly, Rule may be issued.
12. Reliance has also been placed on another order passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhattulal Jain Vs.
Union of India & Ors.2 where notices have been issued to the
dated 26.08.2022 in WP (Civil) No.43 of 2022
dated 06.10.2023 in WP (Civil) No.1044 of 2023
Basavraj Page|9
98.24-pil.docx
Union of India, State of Rajasthan, Election Commission of India
and the said petition has been tagged with Writ Petition (Civil)
No.43 of 2022.
13. Opposing the PIL petition, Dr. Birendra Saraf, Learned
Advocate General has argued vehemently that the impugned
schemes fall within the realm of policy decision appropriately
taken by the State which do not suffer from any illegality and do
not infringe any of the provisions of Part-III of the Constitution
of India, as such, the petition is misconceived.
14. He has also stated that so far as ykMdh cgh.k ;¨tuk is
concerned, the same has been floated by the State Government
for providing benefit to women in need and the scheme itself
provides many safeguards and accordingly, there is no illegality
in the scheme. He has further stated that so far as Employment
Training Scheme is concerned, it has been introduced for the
benefit of unemployed youth between the age of 18 to 35 years
which will help them undergoing some skill development
training/course and that such beneficiaries will have to ensure
that they complete the said training. It is further submitted by
learned Advocate General that both the schemes are, as a
Basavraj Page|10
98.24-pil.docx
matter of fact, social welfare measures in terms of the Directive
Principles of State Policy enshrined under Article 38, 39, 41 and
47 of the Constitution of India.
15. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the
respective parties have been considered by us.
16. The purpose of the impugned schemes and the class of
citizens for whom they have been launched, have been discussed
above which are embodied in the two Government Resolutions,
dated 28th June 2024 and 9th July 2024. Having scrutinized the
impugned Government Resolutions, what we find is that the
schemes floated by the State Government are for the benefit of
a particular class of citizens viz. women in the age group of 21 to
60 years and unemployed youth in the age group of 18 to 35
years. These schemes are primarily a social welfare measures
taken by the State Government to provide certain benefits to
group of citizens which are in need. We may further observe
that the impugned decision to launch the impugned schemes
squarely lies in the realm of State policy and unless we find such
policy contrary to any law or any constitutional provisions,
judicial review of the schemes under challenge in exercise of our
Basavraj Page|11
98.24-pil.docx
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not
be permissible.
17. It is not that policy decisions of the State or its
instrumentalities or agencies are immune from challenge before
the Court under its powers of judicial review, however, the
grounds of such challenge are very limited which are confined to
the schemes being violative of provisions of Part-III of the
Constitution of India or any other law. Unless such policy
decisions are found to be violative of any law or fundamental
rights enshrined in Constitution of India, the Court would not
interfere with such decisions.
18. The first argument raised by learned Counsel for the
petitioner is that the schemes involve huge expenditure at the
cost of tax payers' money and that since Government is a
"service provider in exchange of tax" and hence, the decision to
spend the public money should be well thought of and that
Government cannot be permitted to squander the money in such
cash benefit schemes. This submission made on behalf of the
petitioner is highly misconceived for the simple reason that the
tax levied and realized by the State is compulsory exaction of
Basavraj Page|12
98.24-pil.docx
money. Tax is not a fee which entails an element of quid pro
quo. Accordingly, the submission that in the manner in which
public money is to be spent, tax payer should have a say, is
highly misconceived. As to for what use the public money is to
be put, lies in the domain of the Government of the day.
Through budgetary allocations, which is a legislative process,
such allocation of money is made. Merely because an individual
is a tax payer and therefore, public money should be spent in a
particular manner or for a particular task or project or in any
particular area, is an argument which merits rejection, which is
hereby rejected.
19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also raised a ground
that the ykMdh cgh.k ;¨tuk is discriminatory as it discriminates
between the woman whose family income is upto to Rs.2.50 lacs
p.a. and those whose family income is more than Rs.2.50 lacs
p.a. and further that the woman paying tax is also not covered
under the said Scheme. On this strength, it has been argued by
learned Counsel for the petitioner that this scheme is hit by
equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
This submission made on behalf of the petitioner is again
Basavraj Page|13
98.24-pil.docx
highly misconceived for the reason that the principles of equality
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits
classification, provided it is based on some intelligible criteria.
In our opinion, the woman whose family income is upto to
Rs.2.50 lacs p.a. and the woman whose family income is more
than Rs.2.50 lacs p.a. or the woman who is paying tax, form two
distinct and separate classes. The basis of such classification
has a rationale. If the State thinks it appropriate that those
women whose family income is upto to Rs.2.50 lacs p.a. are in
more disadvantageous position where they cannot afford
adequate means to take care of their health and nutritional
requirements, in our opinion, classification based on such basis
bears an intelligible differentia and accordingly, the ground
urged on behalf of the petitioner based on the scheme being
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not
acceptable.
20. It has also been argued that the expenditure involved in
these two schemes which are under challenge puts a burden on
the State exchequer to the tune of Rs.7.11 lacs crores and that it
would have been more appropriate had the expenditure been
incurred on some infrastructure development projects. This
Basavraj Page|14
98.24-pil.docx
submission is also absolutely misconceived for the reason that
for what purpose the Government will spend the money, is a
policy decision and merely because in view of an individual or a
group of individuals some money could have been spent for a
better purpose, will not make the decision of the Government
vulnerable, legally.
21. As already observed above, allocation of funds for
particular schemes or projects through budgetary provision is a
legislative exercise and since no motive can been attributed to
the legislation, submission made by learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the money being incurred to meet the
expenditure to run these two schemes would have been better
utilized and hence, the schemes are not sustainable, is
misconceived.
22. On behalf of the petitioner, it has next been argued that at
the time when these schemes were being envisaged, the
Department of Finance of the State Government raised certain
concerns but for political considerations the schemes are being
implemented and accordingly, the concerns raised by the
Finance Dependent of the State Government ought to have been
Basavraj Page|15
98.24-pil.docx
given due weightage. Such submission made on behalf of the
petitioner is also not acceptable for the reason that the internal
views of various departments of the State Government will not
make the final decision of the Government in any manner
unlawful. The State is one entity and various Departments are
created for the purposes of smooth transaction of business by
the State. In our Constitutional scheme, we have a concept of
'collective responsibility' and accordingly, view of any individual
Department of the State Government does not have any bearing
on its ultimate decision.
23. Next submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that
the State Government has floated these schemes without there
being any such demand from the citizens such as demand for
loan waiver scheme which is often made by the farmers and
accordingly, in absence of any such demand, the decision of the
State Government to float the schemes under challenge cannot
be justified. Such submission of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner is highly misconceived and goes against the very basic
principles on which the decisions by the Government of the day
are taken. Whether or not to accept the demand being raised by
a section of citizens is to be decided by the State Government in
Basavraj Page|16
98.24-pil.docx
its discretion. The Government, in furtherance of its obligations,
is fully within its powers to take a decision to float any scheme
as a social welfare measure for the benefit of any section of the
society irrespective of the fact whether there is any such
demand or not. Policy making is one of the basic functions of the
Executive of the State where the only restriction on the
Executive for taking policy decisions is that such decision should
be in conformity with the principles as enshrined in our
Constitution. In the entire petition, the petitioner has utterly
failed to point out infringement of any fundamental rights or any
other law by floating the schemes. Hence, the submission is
rejected.
24. It has also been argued that the impugned schemes have
been floated keeping an eye on the impending assembly
elections which are due to be held in October 2024 and also in
view of the results of the last Lok Sabha elections.
25. As already observed, the schemes introduced by the State
Government are for the benefit of disadvantageous sections of
the society viz. the women who are not in a position to support
themselves and the unemployed youth. Part-IV of the
Basavraj Page|17
98.24-pil.docx
Constitution of India contains certain directives according to
which the State is supposed to frame its policies. In case the
State Government frames a scheme, benefit of which has to go
to the disadvantageous sections of the society, such schemes
can be permitted in furtherance of the directive principles
enshrined in Article 38, 41 and 47 of the Constitution of India.
Article 38 provides that State shall promote the welfare of its
people by protecting as effectively as it may, a social order
which ensures justice, social, economic and political. Similarly,
Article 41 contains a directive of State Policy according to which
the State shall make effective provision for securing the right to
work, to education and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement. Article 47
provides that it is the duty of the State that it shall give due
regard to raising the level of nutrition and the standard of living
of its people and the improvement of public health. Such
functions are the primary duties of the State. If we examine the
impugned schemes in the light of the aforesaid directive
principles of State Policy, what we find is that the ykMdh
cgh.k ;¨tuk not only aims at providing for a just social order but
it also aims at raising the level of nutrition amongst the women
Basavraj Page|18
98.24-pil.docx
whose family income is less than Rs.2.50 lacs p.a. As enshrined
in Article 41 of the Constitution, it is also a directive of the
Constitution that the State shall frame its policies, of course,
within its economic capacity, for securing the right to work as
well. The impugned training scheme floated by the State
Government is, in our opinion, a social measure which aims at
developing skills of unemployed youth so that their employable
capacities are enhanced.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is beyond any iota of
doubt in our mind that the schemes which are under challenge
aim at achieving a more just social order where the youth can
develop their potential and skills for being employed and
disadvantaged women can be financially strengthened and their
health and nutrition levels can be enhanced.
27. The argument of arbitrariness and classification emanating
from Article 14 of the Constitution of India in a scheme granting
waiver of loan to small and marginal farmers of the State of
Tamil Nadu was rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Vs. National South Indian
River Interlinking Agriculturist Association 3. The Hon'ble
(2021) 15 SCC 534
Basavraj Page|19
98.24-pil.docx
Supreme Court, in the said judgment, in paragraph 11 observes
that the Court cannot interfere with the soundness and wisdom
of policy and that a policy is subject to judicial review on the
limited ground of compliances with fundamental rights. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the National South Indian River
Interlinking Agriculturist Association (supra) has also
observed that Article 14 provides for substantive and not formal
equality and that classification per se cannot be termed to be
discriminatory for the reason that Article 14 only prohibits class
legislation and not reasonable classification. Paragraphs 11 and
15 of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:
"11. However, it is settled law that the Court cannot interfere with
the soundness and wisdom of a policy. A policy is subject to judicial
review on the limited grounds of compliance with the fundamental
rights and other provisions of the Constitution. [Asif Hameed v. State
of J&K, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364 : 1 SCEC 358; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co.
Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 223; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v.
State of Karnataka, (1996) 10 SCC 304; BALCO Employees' Union v.
Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333; State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash,
(2005) 13 SCC 495 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1225]. It is also settled that the
Courts would show a higher degree of deference to matters
concerning economic policy, compared to other matters of civil and
political rights. In R.K. Garg v. Union of India [R.K. Garg v. Union of
India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 30] , this Court decided on
the constitutional validity of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities
and Exemptions) Act, 1981. The challenge to the statute was on the
principal ground that it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Rejecting the challenge, the Constitution Bench observed that laws
relating to economic activities must be viewed with greater latitude
and deference when compared to laws relating to civil rights such as
freedom of speech : (SCC pp. 690-91, para 8)
"8. Another rule of equal importance is that laws relating to
economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than
Basavraj Page|20
98.24-pil.docx
laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc.
It has been said by no less a person than Holmes, J. [ Ed. : The
reference appears to be to Bain Peanut Co. of Texas v. Pinson,
1931 SCC OnLine US SC 34 : 7 L Ed 482 : 282 US 499 (1931). See
also Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. of Texas v. Clay May,
1904 SCC OnLine US SC 118 : 48 L Ed 971 : 194 US 267, 269
(1904).] , that the legislature should be allowed some play in the
joints, because it has to deal with complex problems which do not
admit of solution through any doctrinaire or straitjacket formula
and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with
economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the
problems required to be dealt with, greater play in the joints has
to be allowed to the legislature. The court should feel more
inclined to give judicial deference to legislative judgment in the
field of economic regulation than in other areas where fundamental
human rights are involved. Nowhere has this admonition been
more felicitously expressed than in Morey v. Doud [Morey v. Doud,
1957 SCC OnLine US SC 105 : 1 L Ed 2d 1485 : 354 US 457
(1957)] where Frankfurter, J., said in his inimitable style:
'In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good
reasons for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to
legislative judgment. The legislature after all has the affirmative
responsibility. The courts have only the power to destroy, not to
reconstruct. When these are added to the complexity of economic
regulation, the uncertainty, the liability to error, the bewildering
conflict of the experts, and the number of times the Judges have
been overruled by events -- self-limitation can be seen to be the
path to judicial wisdom and institutional prestige and stability.'"
15. The equality code in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
prescribes substantive and not formal equality. It is now a settled
position that classification per se is not discriminatory and violative of
Article 14. Article 14 only forbids class legislation and not reasonable
classification. A classification is reasonable, when the twin tests as laid
down by S.R. Das, J. in State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [State of W.B.
v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 1 SCC 1 : 1952 SCR 284] are fulfilled:
15.1. The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped, from others left out of
the group.
15.2. The differentia must have a rational relationship to the object
sought to be achieved by the statute."
28. In National South Indian River Interlinking
Agriculturist Association (supra), the loan waiver scheme
Basavraj Page|21
98.24-pil.docx
was made applicable only to small and marginal farmers and it
was challenged with further assertion that such benefit be
extended to all farmers and that since it is not extended to all
category of farmers, it is discriminatory. Repelling the said
arguments, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that application of
the scheme of loan waiver to only small and marginal farmers is
justified for the reason that a climate crisis causes large-scale
damages to small holdings as compared to the large holdings
due to the absence of capital and technology; and the small and
marginal farmers belong to the economically weaker section of
society. In the instant case as well the classification between
women whose family income is Rs.2.50 lacs p.a. or below and
the women whose family income is above Rs.2.50 lacs p.a. or
the women who are tax payers, in our opinion bears an
intelligible differentia for the reason that the first category of
women fall in disadvantaged situation on account of their low
family income. Such classification, in our opinion is, thus,
permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
29. We may also refer to Article 15 of the Constitution of India
which primarily aims at prohibition of discrimination on the
ground, inter alia; of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth,
Basavraj Page|22
98.24-pil.docx
however, sub clause 3 of Article 15 enables the State to make
any special provision for women and children. Said Article
provides, "nothing in this Article shall prevent the State
from making any special provision for women and
children." Thus, so far as women are concerned, if the State in
the instant case, has chosen to provide certain benefits, may be
monetary benefits, to those family income is upto Rs.2.50 lacs
p.a., the State is enabled to make such provision in view of what
is provided in Article 15 of the Constitution of India.
30. A Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in the case
of Umesh Mohan Sethi Vs. Union of India & Anr., 4 has
clearly held that a tax payer has no right to challenge
expenditure of public monies by the Government. The decision
in Umesh Mohan Sethi (supra) is based on a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Laxman Moreshwar
Mahurkar Vs. Balkrishna Jagannath Kinikar 5, where reliance
was placed on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rai
Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 6.
Quoting extensively from the judgment of this Court in the case
2012 SCC OnLine Del 6186
AIR 1961 Bom 167
AIR 1955 SC 549
Basavraj Page|23
98.24-pil.docx
of Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar (supra), Umesh Mohan
Sethi (supra) finally concluded that in view of the provisions
contained in Article 282 of the Constitution of India, a very wide
discretion is available to the State Government and it is for the
State to decide what is public purpose and what is not a public
purpose. The conclusion, thus, drawn in Umesh Mohan Sethi
(supra) is that a tax payer does not have any right to challenge
the expenditure of public monies by the Government.
31. In view of the law as discussed above, any interference in
the schemes which are under challenge herein, in our opinion, is
unwarranted.
32. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that
in view of the orders dated 26 th August 2022 and 6th October
2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Supreme Court in
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra) and Bhattulal Jain
(supra), respectively, the Court is required to issue Rule
requiring the State to file their reply and accordingly, to
entertain this petition. We are unable to agree with the
aforesaid submission as by order dated 26 th August 2022 in
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme
Basavraj Page|24
98.24-pil.docx
Court has referred the prayer to over-rule the judgment in the
case of S. Subramanian Balaji (supra) which is a two Judge
Bench judgment, to a three Judge Bench. In our opinion, only
because Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the matter for
considering the prayer to over-rule S. Subramanian Balaji
(supra) to a larger bench, does not improve the case of the
petitioner. The prayer is, thus, rejected.
33. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere
in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.
34. However, there will be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Basavraj Page|25
