NIAMATHULLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises an important question under Art.282 of the Constitution of India as to the limits of Judicial Review of the spending powers of the State. Where should we draw the line The appeal was filed by the party in person in the writ petition, OP 10356 of 1992, P.A. Niamathulla of Aluva, against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 14-8-1992.

(2.) In the writ petition, writ petitioner challenged the distribution of KELTRON Colour Television sets to the members of the Kerala Legislative Assembly by respondents 1 to 3. 141 Television sets, said to be costing about 19 lakhs of rupees were distributed to the Legislators and the grievance of the writ petitioner appellant was that this ought not to have been done. Of course, the writ petitioner raised the contention' that the said gift amounts to illegal gratification, an offence coming under S.161 of the Indian Penal Code. Distribution of free gifts to all members of the Legislature, according to the writ petitioner, is not permissible under the Payment of Salaries and Allowances Act, 1951 (Act 14 of 1951). He further contended that distribution of Television sets would amount to using public funds and that the government has no power, to spend public funds in such a manner. He also relies upon Art.195 of the Constitution to say that personal gifts would go against the said provision. It is also stated that no public sector undertaking would undertake to provide Television sets without the consideration thereof being paid to it by those who purchase the said Television sets. He also referred to the financial difficulties of the State as disclosed from G.O.(P) No. 366/91/Fin dated 15.4.1992 and contended that when the State was suffering from acute financial problems, the above said distribution of the Television sets belonged to the KELTRON was not warranted. He also relied upon Art.14 of the Constitution. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It is against the said judgment that this appeal has been filed.

(3.) In this appeal, KELTRON filed a statement through its counsel on 14-6-1993. In the said statement, KELTRON stated that a note was received by the KELTRON from the Chief Secretary to Government and the Secretary, Industries Department and that KELTRON should act in accordance with the said note. In the said note, it was said that: