S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to espouse a public cause. The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs :i. For a direction to restrain respondent No. 1 from spending any amount towards the function slated for 17-10-1992 to mark the second anniversary of assumption of office of Chief Minister by respondent No. 2; and ii) For a direction to respondent No. 1 to take steps for recovery of whatever funds that has already been spent on the function slated for 17-10-1992 to mark the second anniversary of assumption of office of Chief Minister by respondent No. 2. And to grant certain interim reliefs.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on five aspects, namely : (1) that the money is spent only to glorify the second respondent; (2) that the said expenditure is without the authority of law; (3) that it runs contrary to the austerity policy adopted by the Government as disclosed in the budgetary speech made by the second respondent; (4) that release of buses in the State will cause great public inconvenience; and (5) that the land where the convention is sought to be held itself is involved in litigation between the Government and the private parties and the convention should not be held in such a land. Reference was also made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Art. 267 of the Constitution and the Manual of Contingent Expenditure. He relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts to contend that the State in order to incur expenditure must be duly authorised and unless it is so authorised it cannot incur such expenditure. The principal submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the convention in question is going to be held only for the benefit of the second respondent and not for the benefit of the public of the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that every action of the Government must be informed with reason and unless the action of the Government is one informed with reason and in public interest the same is liable to be struck off by the Court. However, such an issue is not before me. When there is a lis between the Government or any party or between any two parties where such parties have rights of State in distributing its largesse to any particular individual or lacks in fairness in treating all equally such questions may arise. Here the question is one relating to powers of the Government to spend money out of public exchequer for a set of purposes. Thus the question really is one on the nature and extent of power of expenditure, scope and limit thereof and the ambit of judicial audit.

( 3 ) THE learned Advocate General in reply submitted that so far as this Court is concerned, there is a serious limit to the exercise of its power as set forth in various decisions and referred me to them in detail, to which I shall make reference a little later. Thus the nature of the reliefs sought for in this case do not enure to the benefit of any particular individual as they are general in nature. No rights of any individual are involved. An analysis of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner will reveal that what is attacked is the scope of the power of expenditure by the State in a matter of this nature.

( 4 ) THE earliest case in this regard was the one in Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar v. Balkrishna Jagannath Kinikar, AIR 1961 Bom 167. The Bombay High Court while dealing with this question and with specific reference to Art. 282 of the Constitution has stated as follows". . . . . The powers of a State Government are much wider as would appear from Article 282 of the Constitution. . . . . This provision confers a very wide discretion on a State Government. It is for the State Government to decide what is public purpose and what is not a public purpose. . . . . If the Government purports to spend money for a purpose which it characterises as a public purpose though in poi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document