The State Government has the authority to allocate funds for development works in the public interest, and the absence of a personal right in the petitioner precludes the challenge to the State's decision.

JUDGMENT :

N.M. Jamdar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Taken for disposal.

2. The Petitioner, member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Akola-West Constituency, has filed this writ petition challenging the Government Resolution dated 16 July 2020, cancelling the list of public works to be carried out in Akola city and replacing them with other works listed in the Government Resolution.

3. The main ground of challenge is that the earlier Government Resolution for development works in the city of Akola has been substituted by the impugned Government Resolution only because of change of Government after the general elections and that requisite procedure has not been followed. The Respondent State Government contends that the Petitioner has no personal right to question the impugned decision nor suffered any injury; the impugned decision is in the public interest, having proposed more development works in the City in the same funds; and the challenge of the Petitioner is politically motivated.

4. The State of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution on 12 December 2017 laying down a policy of providing basic amenities in the area of Municipal Corporations. A scheme was formulated, and Municipal Corporation Basic Amenities and Facilities Development Fund was constituted. This policy postulated that the contribution of the State Government to this fund would be 50%, and the respective Municipal Corporation would contribute the remaining 50%. As per this policy, grants are distributed based on the categorisation of the Municipal Corporation. To develop basic amenities in the A+ class Municipal Corporation, contribution between State Government and Municipal Corporation was fifty per cent each in ratio. For special grants to Municipal Corporation for distinctive works, the State Government's share was one hundred per cent. As per the policy of 12 December 2017, after the proposals are received, the same are forwarded to the District Level Committee under the chairmanship of the Divisional Commissioner. After the scrutiny by the Committee, the same are forwarded to the State Government for administrative approval and allocation of funds. After approval of the sanctioning authority, funds are released for the works.

5. For the financial year 2019-20, by Government Resolution dated 9 September 2019, an amount of Rs. 15 crores for 91 works in total was given to Akola Municipal Corporation under the head "special grants to Municipal Corporation for distinctive works". By Government Resolution dated 8 August 2019, the Department of Urban Development had sanctioned the development works proposed by the Petitioner. On 7 September 2019, the District Level Committee had approved the list of works proposed by the Petitioner, and on 9 September 2020, the amount of Rs. 15 crores for the development works was sanctioned. It is contended that on 9 September 2019, District Level Committee had proposed the specific list of works to be carried out, and on 30 September 2019, the State Government permitted Collector Akola to execute the works and exhaust the funds of Rs. 15 crores before 31 March 2021. The works, however, could not be carried out as elections to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly were announced on 22 September 2019, and the Code of Conduct came into force. Thereafter, on 5 December 2019, a stay was granted to the development works in the State of Maharashtra till 31 March 2020. This stay was vacated by the State Government on 31 March 2020. On 16 July 2020, the State Government cancelled the 91 works decided as per Government Resolution dated 9 September 2019 and issued a new Government Resolution providing for 176 works for Akola city out of Rs. 15 crores. Till impugned Government Resolution dated 16 July 2020 was issued, no work order was issued, and the works had not commenced. Challenging this substitution, the Petitioner is before us.

6. We have heard Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the