SUDHIR DAULATCHAND KOTHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the Government Resolution dated 23.3.2016 and the order of the Collector, Wardha dated 14.2016.

(2.) The petitioner is a President of the Municipal Council, Hinganghat. From the material placed on record, it appears that with the persuasion of the local Member of Legislative Assembly as well as the Guardian Minister, the State Government has decided to sanction an amount of Rs. 10/- ( Ten) Crores as special grants for carrying out various developmental works in the municipal area, Hinganghat. Accordingly, a letter was addressed by the State Government to the Collector, Wardha informing him that an amount of Rs. 10/- Crores has been made available for carrying out primary infrastructural works in the undeveloped area of Hinganghat Municipal Council. The Collector was informed vide the said communication that since he was the authority to grant administrative approval, he should grant administrative approval and submit a proposal to the State Government for disbursement of funds. Accordingly, a letter was addressed by the Collector to the Municipal Council on 30.1.2016. The Municipal Council passed a Resolution in its meeting dated 24.2016 deciding to carry out 49 works in the different areas. The Municipal Council also applied to the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran for grant of technical approval. Accordingly, vide order dated 14.3.2016 the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran had granted technical approval. The Collector, Wardha vide his order dated 16.3.2016 granted administrative approval to the various works which were listed in the resolution of the Municipal Council. It is pertinent to note that till this point of time, there was no dispute.

(3.) On 22016 the State Government issued a Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the said "Government Resolution") thereby resolving to disburse an amount of Rs. 10/- Crores for the various special works to be undertaken in the Hinganghat Municipal Council area. Vide the said Government Resolution, vide clause 10 the Collector was appointed as a Controlling Authority, whereas the District Administrative Officer was appointed as Drawing and Disbursing Authority. The clause with which the petitioner is most aggrieved is Clause 3, which provides that the implementing agency for execution of the said works, would be decided by the Collector being the Controlling Authority. In pursuance of the said clause, the Collector vide the order dated 11.4.2016 has appointed the Public Works Division, Wardha (hereinafter referred to as "the PWD, Wardha" to be the implementing agency. Being aggrieved by Clause 3 of the said Government Resolution and the communication dated 11.4.2016 appointing the PWD, Wardha as the implementing agency, the petitioner has approved this Court.