The main legal point established in the judgment is that government decisions must be made in a fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, and objective manner, and any decision taken in an arbitrary fashion, without transparent method or for political considerations, is amenable to judicial review and liable to be quashed and set aside.

P.R. BORA, J.

1. Two citizens from Beed have filed the present Public Interest Litigation impugning the communication dated 11th April, 2016, whereby the Under Secretary to the State of Maharashtra has directed the Collector, Beed to transfer the funds allocated to Municipal Council, Beed for implementing the construction work of roads and drainages in the extended areas of Municipal Council, Beed, under the Scheme sponsored in that regard by the State Government, to the Public Works Department and to get the said works executed from the said Department.

2. This court on 26th October, 2016 has passed an order restraining the Collector, Beed from parting with the funds, which he has received. That order continues to operate even today.

3. The State Government, vide its Resolution dated 27th June, 2012 had resolved to provide financial assistance to the Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils, of which the territorial limits are extended, to enable them to carry out the public utility works like construction of road, drainages etc. in the said extended areas. As provided in the said Government Resolution, for carrying out such works, the Municipal Councils are required to make provision to the extent of 10% of the estimated cost of the works to be carried out, by way of their own contribution and the remaining 90% amount of the estimated cost is to be shared by the State Government by making the grants available to that extent to the concerned Municipal Councils.

4. In order to avail the benefit of the aforesaid scheme, Municipal Council, Beed (Respondent no.3) prepared a proposal for construction of roads and drainages in its extended areas. As per the said proposal, at 12 different places in the extended areas, hot mix and cement concrete roads so also drainages were proposed to be constructed. The estimated cost of the works so proposed was Rs.30,09,08,666/. Respondent no.3 in its General Body meeting held on 6th May, 2013 vide Resolution No.940 resolved to deposit with the Government 10% own contribution for the aforesaid works. The Collector, Beed, (Respondent no.2) vide his order dated 22nd October, 2013 granted administrative sanction/approval to the proposal so prepared and submitted by respondent no.3. The said proposal was, then forwarded to the State Government seeking financial assistance to the extent of 90% of the estimated cost of the proposed works in view of the Government Resolution dated 27th June, 2012. The proposal was favourably considered by the State Government and vide Resolution dated 18th March, 2016, the State Government released the first instalment amounting to Rs.13,54,08,900/in favour of the Municipal Council, Beed.

5. As has been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3, after the administrative sanction/approval was granted to the proposed works, the Municipal Council Beed carried out the tender process for allotment of the said works and in turn accepted the tender of the lowest bidder and accordingly the work order was issued to the said contractor on 14th August, 2014. As has been further submitted on behalf of respondent no.3 the project works have been completed to the extent of 6070%. In the circumstances, request was made by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 to release the grants of Rs.13,54,08,900/received towards first instalment from the State Government. However, in the meanwhile the impugned communication came to be issued.

6. The petitioners have alleged that under the political pressure of M.L.A. Shri Vinayak Mete, the State Government has issued the impugned communication. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the decision taken by the State Government is against the interest of the Municipal Council Beed and consequently against the interest of the residents of Beed. According to the petitioners, transfer of the project works in the midway from respondent no.3 to Public Works Department,