The court emphasized the necessity of adjudicating allegations of arbitrary government actions to uphold public trust and the rule of law.

1. Questions of considerable public importance are raised in this public interest action initiated under Art.226 of the Constitution by three citizens, one of whom is a former member of the country's sovereign legislative body, the Parliament, the other two being former members of the Maharashtra State Legislature.

2. These questions have vital significance to the rule of law and the rights and obligations of the Executive enjoined to administer and govern according to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country.

3. Though there are three respondents to this petition viz., (1) the State of Maharashtra, (2) the Chief Minister of Maharashtra and (3) the Union of India, this petition is directed mainly against the first two respondents, there being no dispute that respondent No. 3. Union of India, is a formal party.

4. Case is that the petitioner received numerous complaints from various citizens that cement - an essential commodity was not at all available from rationing offices either for building or for repair work; that bona fide claims in that behalf were completely side - tracked: that persons who secured recommendations of the Chief Minister or other Ministers, M.L.As. and Officers were getting cement in large quantities in breach of the normal procedure; that the petitioners themselves who had applied for only five bags of cement each had also not got the same.

5. Submission is that the present system of distribution of cement in the State of Maharashtra was in complete violation of the procedure established by law, viz., the Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 read with Government Resolution dated 12th September, 1978 set out in extenso in the petition, the very preamble to this resolution being :
"In view of the frequent complaint regarding the non - availability and black marketing of cement, the Government has been considering the question of re - organisation of the system of distribution of cement in the State with a view to ensuring equitable distribution of cement at fixed prices. After examining the matter in details, the Government is pleased to direct that the system of distribution of cement in the State from the 1st October, 1978 should be as indicated in this Government Resolution."

6. Averment then is that though it was by notice in Mantralaya notified that no applications for cement would be received by Mantralaya as cement was not being distributed or allotted by the 1st or the 2nd respondent the several allotment orders annexed to the petition show that cement was in fact allotted directly from Mantralaya, thus rendering false the notice supra.

7. Averments thereafter are:
(a) The Chief Minister has been allotting large quantities of cement in an arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and unjust manner to big builders / contractors / industrialists by collecting large sums of money for certain Trusts created by him and of which he is a Trustee.
(b) The Chief Minister falsely stated that he headed the said Trusts in his official capacity as Chief Minister of the State.
(c) The Chief Minister stated on the floor of the Legislative Assembly that to collect large funds for purposes as those of the said Trusts from persons getting the benefit of State services in one form or another was pr