ORDER :

B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhv, JJ.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals are directed against order of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court which dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants, Raja Shri Shivrai Pratishthan, Pune and Siddhai Mahila Mandal, Kolhapur, questioning Government resolution dated April 20, 2002 whereby names of the appellants were excluded from the list of institutions selected for running Vruddhashrams on non-grant-aid basis.

4. The appellants are non-government organizations. In furtherance of the policy decision taken by the Government of Maharashtra to establish homes for senior citizens under the Matoshree Vruddhashram Scheme (for short 'the Scheme'), the appellants established old age homes at Pune and Kolhapur respectively.

5. In 1995, the State Government framed rules for providing grant-in-aid to recognised Vruddhashrams. The same were circulated vide Resolution dated 17th November, 1995. The Vruddhashrams established by the appellants were among the institutions selected for grant- in-aid. After six years, the State Government reviewed its decision and issued Resolution dated 3rd December, 2001 for conducting Vruddhashrams through private voluntary institutions on permanent non-grant-aid basis.

6. Para 2 of the resolution envisaged the issue of an advertisement by Director, Social Welfare for inviting proposals for conducting Vruddhashrams on non-grant-aid basis with a stipulation that all recognised Vruddhashrams will be entitled to apply and the institutions whose work was to be found satisfactory and who agreed to be abide by the terms and conditions enumerated in the Government resolution will be given preference.

7. In response to the advertisement issued by Director, Social Welfare, Maharashtra, the appellants submitted applications along with the required information and documents. Likewise, the private respondents submitted applications for being selected for running Vruddhashrams.

8. Vide Resolution dated 20th April, 2002, the Government notified the listing of institutions selected for conducting Vruddhashrams on non-grant-aid basis. The names of the appellants did not figure in that list. Instead, the private respondents were shown as the institutions selected for running Vruddhashrams at Pune and Kolhapur respectively.

9. The appellants challenged resolution dated 20th April, 2002 by contending that their non-selection for running Vruddhashrams on non- grant-aid basis is wholly arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

10. Another plea taken by the appellants was that before rejecting their applications, the concerned authorities did not afford them opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the impugned action is liable to be declared as vitiated due to violation of rules of natural justice.

11. In the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.3091 of 2002, Shri N.N. Bhadikar, Deputy Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department, Government of Maharashtra, stated that at the time of inspection of Vruddhashrams by the Director of Social Welfare on 21.11.2000, it was revealed that a number of Vruddhashrams were not running as per the norms laid down by the Government and in the light of his report, it was decided to implement the Scheme through non- Government organizations on permanent non-grant-aid basis. However, he did not controvert the assertion made in the writ petition that the Vruddhashram established by the appellant, Raja Shri Shivraya Pratishthan, Pune was being conducted satisfactorily and that there was no deficiency which could justify denial of the benefit of para 2 of resolution dated 3rd December, 2001. In the writ petition filed by appellant, Siddhai Mahila Mandal, Kolhapur, neither any counter affidavit was filed nor any material was placed before the High Court to show that there was any deficiency in the running of Vruddhashrams.

12. By the impugned order, the High Cour