RAVINDRA v. GHUGE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.Reserved on
Legal Reasoning
*1* wp11855o23IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.11855 OF 2023JANARDHAN EKNATH SONAWANE AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.13787 OF 2023INWRIT PETITION NO.11855 OF 2023GRAMPANCHAYAT, KHARABA, TQ.MANWATVERSUSJANARDHAN EKNATH SONAWANE AND OTHERSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.14363 OF 2023INWRIT PETITION NO.11855 OF 2023KAMLAKAR VINAYAK AWATEVERSUSJANARDHAN EKNATH SONAWANE AND OTHERS…Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners.Shri A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1, 3and 4/State.Ms.Pradnya S. Talekar i/by Talekar and Associates forRespondent No.5.Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Intervenor/ Applicant inCA/13787/2023.Shri Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate for the Intervenor/ Applicant inCA/14363/2023.... *2* wp11855o23 CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.Reserved on : 15th January, 2024Pronounced on : 20th March, 2024ORDER ( Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. ) :- 1.The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses A andB as under:-“A)To hold and declare that, the impugned list ofworks introduced by virtue of communicationdtd.9/7/2023, 31/8/2023 & 1/9/2023(Exhibit-"C" Colly) prepared and issued by therespondent no.2 as illegal, unsustainable,therefore, quash and set aside the sameforthwith; and for that purpose issue necessarydirections.B) Pending hearing and final disposal of thepresent Writ Petition forbear the respondentsfrom implementing and executing the impugnedlist of works introduced by virtue ofcommunication dtd.9/7/2023, 31/8/2023 &1/9/2023 (Exhibit-"C" Colly) prepared andissued by the respondent no.2 as forthwith; andfor that purpose issue necessary directions.”2.On 29.09.2023, this Court passed the followingorder:-“1. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that the mattermay be taken up on 09.10.2023 in the "FreshAdmissions Category" so that the Govt.Pleadercan file an affidavit in reply.2. Since the Regular Bench is not available today, weare listing this matter on 09.10.2023 in the "Fresh *3* wp11855o23Admissions Category" as it requires a hearing.However, let the situation as existing today, not bealtered till 09.10.2023.3. Issue notice to Respondent Nos.1,3,4 and 5,returnable on 09.10.2023. The learnedGovt.Pleader waives service of notice on behalf ofRespondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Mr.Nikam waivesservice of notice on behalf of Respondent No.5.4. This petition be listed on 09.10.2023 in the "FreshAdmissions Category".”3.On 22.12.2023, a further order was passed as under:-“1. The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishadsubmits that there are instructions for the State ofMaharashtra that the Health Department shouldimmediately gear up to meet any possibility inconnection with the JN-1 virus / Covid and dealeven with the lumpy disease which is affectingcattle of a large scale in this region.2. Considering the grave urgency and as the learnedAdvocate for the Petitioners is not available, weobserved as follows :-(a) The Ad-interim order passed on 29.09.2023 wouldbe restricted to the issues involved in this Petition.(b) As the learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad hastendered a ready reference chart (4 pages) whileexpressing grave urgency, the same is marked as“X-1” for identification and in connectiontherewith, we observe that the Zilla Parishadwould be at liberty to proceed with regard to SerialNo.1 – Health Department – purchase ofmedicines, machinery and equipments for primaryhealth centres/sub-centers, Serial No.4 – AnimalHusbandry Department – supply of medicines tothe veterinary institutions and Serial No.5 –Animal Husbandry Department – Fodder and feeddevelopment – grants to Zilla Parishads.3. The learned Government Pleader submits that inthe event of grave urgency involving risk to life ofhumans as well as cattle, on account of unforeseencircumstances / Covid JN-1 virus, the District *4* wp11855o23Administration be granted the liberty to initiateappropriate steps to combat the situation. For suchreasons or in such circumstances only, the ad-interim order with regard to planning, developmentand erection of infrastructure would not be animpediment.4. List this matter on 08.01.2024 at 2.30 p.m.”4.Since the Respondents insisted upon dealing withthe issue of locus standi of the Petitioners and whether, there isany cause of action to be looked into in this Writ Petition, that wehave heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides on thesaid issue.SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER5.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner hascanvassed as under:-(a)Petitioner No.1 is an ex-member of the GramPanchayat and the Zilla Parishad.(b)Petitioner No.2 is an ex-Chairman of the SocialWelfare Committee, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.(c)Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are abdicating theirstatutory functions and the Minister of Public Health and FamilyWelfare, who is the Guardian Minister of Parbhani District, ispreparing the list of public works, which is being followed by the *5* wp11855o23Zilla Parishad.(d)The power and authority flowing from Article 243-Gof the Constitution of India enables the Institution of selfgovernance, to prepare plans for economic development andsocial justice.(e)It further casts obligation for implementation of theschemes for economic development and social justice includingmatters enlisted in the 11th Schedule of the Constitution of India.(f)The Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, has exclusive powersto undertake all development works as ordained by Article 243-Gand as per the 11th Schedule thereunder. (g)The Collector functions as the Secretary of theDistrict Planning Committee and the Guardian Minister is theChairman. (h)The State of Maharashtra funds such public projectsand while allocating the funds, the Guardian Minister is himselfdeciding the draft development plan, the State Government isbreaching and contravening various Government Resolutions andthere is rampant departure by the Respondent Authorities inrelation to the functions of the District Planning Committee(DPC). *6* wp11855o23(i)DPC is not the planning authority and the GramPanchayat has to prepare the plans.(j)Reliance is placed on the following judgments:-(A) Charan Sovinda Waghmare vs. State ofMaharashtra and others, AIR Online 2012 Bom. 2 morespecifically paragraphs 41 and 42, which read thus:-“41. This brings us to consideration of the preliminaryobjection raised by the learned GovernmentPleader about the status and locus of thepetitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is acitizen of India and a resident of Bhandara. He istherefore a beneficiary of the proposeddevelopments in that area. He is also a Councilorelected to Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. He is alsoelected as Chairman of the Finance and WorksCommittee of that Zilla Parishad. Chapter -IV of1961 Act deals with Committees under Section78(1) clause [a] provides for Finance Committee,while clause [b] provides for Works Committee.The Chairman of such Committee is empoweredunder Section 91 to convene and preside over andconduct meetings of that Committee, to haveaccess to records of that Committee, call for anyinformation and return, statements, account orreport from any officer of the Zilla Parishad andenter and inspect any immovable property or anywork or development scheme. Facts noted by usabove clearly show that initially the Zilla Parishadthough its Chief Executive Officer who isrespondent no.5 before us and also throughrespondent nos.6 and 7 attempted to point out thatthe DPC was not concerned and its interventionwas without jurisdiction. However, later on it haswithdrawn that stand and accepted the say of theDistrict Planning Committee, through respondentno.2 and respondent no.4. Records also show thatarrangements were made earlier and Advocate *7* wp11855o23H.N. Verma, had filed vakalatnama for respondentnos. 5,6 and 7. However, later on he was asked towithdraw and job of defending Zilla Parishad wasentrusted to Government Pleader who already wasappearing for other respondents including theguardian minister. This conflict of interest withinthe Zilla Parishad forms part of resolution no.12passed in Special General Body meeting of theZilla Parishad on 22.07.2011. The resolution onadditional subject no.3 passed by the GeneralBody on 29.09.2011 shows decision of GeneralBody of Zilla Parishad to sanction funds forprosecuting present Writ Petition. Similar decisionis taken by the Construction Committee of ZillaParishad on 18.08.2011. On 22.07.2011 videsubject no.12 similar resolution was passed and itappears that respondent no.3 DivisionalCommissioner suspended it in exercise of powersunder section 267[c] of 1961 Act. This was alsoprotested by the President of the Zilla Parishadwho on 17.09.2011 sought its vacation. The papersproduced before us therefore, show that officersentrusted with the task of protecting the interest ofZilla Parishad gave up their responsibility andaccepted to be guided by respondent no.2. Thisabdication is clear from reply affidavit of the ZillaParishad dated 09.05.2011 and 12.08.2011. Theseofficers have not taken pains to explain reasonbehind it. In this situation, and in the light of thediscussions on merits above, we find no substancein the objection raised by the learned GovernmentPleader. Petitioner as a citizen, as an electedCouncilor of Zilla Parishad, as a Chairman ofCommittee for finance and works is competent tomaintain present petition. In any case, generalbody of Zilla Parishad Councilors has supportedhim and his act of approaching this Court. Theexecutive available in Zilla Parishad is even to-daysupporting the cause of Guardian Minister. Hence,Petition as filed can not be thrown away at thresh-hold. 42.The petitioner is citizen of India and in any case aperson acting in the Society. A statutorily and *8* wp11855o23constitutionally empowered local authority likeZilla Parishad was within it's right and hasdecided to execute 62 works. Necessary approvalto those works was also granted and funds thereforwere also released by the State Government. It isonly because of the undue intervention byrespondent no.2, that this situation has arisen.During arguments, Shri Sambre, learnedGovernment Pleader has pointed out to us that on03.03.2012 the administrative approval granted on06.01.2011 and 18.01.2011 has been canceled bythe competent authority. This fact has not beenbrought on record by filing appropriate affidavit.In any case, in above situation, when approval wasalready granted and grants were also received bythe office of Collector, for those 62 works, it isapparent that the respondent nos. 6 and 7 hadbecome functuous officio and could not haverecalled or canceled those approvals. But then thependency of present petition has induced them totake such a decision which is of no consequence atall. The petitioner has pointed out in this petitionthat after the said administrative approvals,tenders were already finalized and only workorders were left to be issued. This fact is not indispute before us.” [Emphasis Supplied] (B)Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam andothers vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and another, (2016) 2SCC 725. Relevant paragraphs 11 and 12, relied upon by thePetitioners, read thus:-“11.Preliminary Objections have been raised to themaintainability of the writ petitions by Shri P.P.Rao and Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned seniorcounsels appearing for respondents . It has beenurged that the present writ petitions have not been *9* wp11855o23filed as public interest litigations and in theabsence of any specific orders in implementation ofthe impugned G.O. dated 23.05.2006 the writpetitions are premature. It is further contended thateven if the writ petitions are to be considered asPILs the same raise questions with regard toappointment in public office i.e. Archakas in publictemples and therefore the writ petitions will alsonot be maintainable as public interest litigations. Itis further urged that as and when the G.O. is giveneffect to by actual appointment of an Archaka orArchakas, as may be, it will be open for thepetitioners to raise the issue and establish thatthere is a usage or custom or customary practicegoverning the temple in question which require theappointment of the Archaka to be made from aparticular denomination. 12.It is difficult for us to accept the contentionsadvanced on behalf of the respondents with regardto the maintainability of writ petitions on twocounts. Firstly, it is difficult to appreciate as to whythe petitioners should be non-suited at thethreshold merely because the G.O. dated23.05.2006 has not been given effect to by actualorders of the State Government. The institution of awrit proceeding need not await actual prejudiceand adverse effect and consequence. Anapprehension of such harm, if the same is wellfounded, can furnish a cause of action for movingthe Court. The argument that the present writpetition is founded on a cause relating toappointment in a public office and hence notentertainable as a public interest litigation wouldbe too simplistic a solution to adopt to answer theissues that have been highlighted which concernsthe religious faith and practice of a large numberof citizens of the country and raises claims ofcentury old traditions and usage having the forceof law. The above is the second ground, namely, thegravity of the issues that arise, that impel us tomake an attempt to answer the issues raised andarising in the writ petitions for determination onthe merits thereof.” *10* wp11855o23(C)St.Mary’s Education Society and another vs.Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others, (2023) 4 SCC 498.Relevant paragraphs 40 and 41, relied upon by the Petitioners,read thus:-“40. Paragraph 11 of the judgment in Binny Ltd. vs. V.Sadasivan, (2005(6) SCC 657) (supra) isreproduced below:- "11.Judicial review is designed to prevent thecases of abuse of power and neglect of duty bypublic authorities. However, under ourConstitution, Article 226 is couched in such a waythat a writ of mandamus could be issued evenagainst a private authority. However, such privateauthority must be discharging a public functionand that the decision sought to be corrected orenforced must be in discharge of a public function.The role of the State expanded enormously andattempts have been made to create variousagencies to perform the governmental functions.Several corporations and companies have alsobeen formed by the government to run industriesand to carry on trading activities. These have cometo be known as Public Sector Undertakings.However, in the interpretation given to Article 12of the Constitution, this Court took the view thatmany of these companies and corporations couldcome within the sweep of Article 12 of theConstitution. At the same time, there are privatebodies also which may be discharging publicfunctions. It is difficult to draw a line between thepublic functions and private functions when it isbeing discharged by a purely private authority. Abody is performing a "public function" when itseeks to achieve some collective benefit for thepublic or a section of the public and is accepted bythe public or that section of the public as havingauthority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise publicfunctions when they intervene or participate in *11* wp11855o23social or economic affairs in the public interest.” 41.This Court considered various of its otherdecisions to examine the question of public lawremedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. ThisCourt observed in Binny Ltd. (supra) as under:- “29. Thus, it can be seen that a writ ofmandamus or the remedy under Article 226 is pre-eminently a public law remedy and is not generallyavailable as a remedy against private wrongs. It isused for enforcement of various rights of the publicor to compel the public/statutory authorities todischarge their duties and to act within theirbounds. It may be used to do justice when there iswrongful exercise of power or a refusal to performduties. This writ is admirably equipped to serve asa judicial control over administrative actions. Thiswrit could also be issued against any private bodyor person, specially in view of the words used inArticle 226 of the Constitution. However, the scopeof mandamus is limited to enforcement of publicduty. The scope of mandamus is determined by thenature of the duty to be enforced, rather than theidentity of the authority against whom it is sought.If the private body is discharging a public functionand the denial of any right is in connection withthe public duty imposed on such body, the publiclaw remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on thepublic body may be either statutory or otherwiseand the source of such power is immaterial, but,nevertheless, there must be the public law elementin such action. Sometimes, it is difficult todistinguish between public law and private lawremedies.””(D) Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryanaand others, (1985) 3 SCC 267. Relevant paragraph No.9 referredto by the Petitioners, reads thus:-“9.Before we deal with the larger issue, let me put outof the way the contention that found favour with *12* wp11855o23the High Court in rejecting the writ petition. Thelearned Single Judge as well as the Division Benchrecalling the observations of this Court in AssistantCollector of Central Excise v. Jainson HosieryIndustries (1979) 4 SCC 22 rejected the writpetition observing that 'the petitioner who invokesthe extraordinary jurisdiction of the court underArticle 226 of the Constitution must haveexhausted the normal statutory remedies availableto him'. We remain unimpressed. Ordinarily it istrue that the court has imposed a restraint in itsown wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction underArticle 226 where the party invoking thejurisdiction has an effective, adequate alternativeremedy. More often, it has been expressly statedthat the rule which requires the exhaustion ofalternative remedies is a rule of convenience anddiscretion rather than rule of law. At any rate itdoes not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. In factin the very decision relied upon by the High Courtin The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Noohit is observed that “there is no rule, with regard tocertiorari as there is with mandamus, that it willlie only where there is no other equally effectiveremedy”. It should be made specifically clear thatwhere the order complained against is alleged tobe illegal or invalid as being contrary to law, apetition at the in stance of person adverselyaffected by it, would lie to the High Court underArticle 226 and such a petition cannot be rejectedon the ground that an appeal lies to the higherofficer or the State Government. An appeal in allcases cannot be said to provide in all situations analternative effective remedy keeping aside the nicedistinction between jurisdiction and merits. Lookat the fact situation in this case. Power wasexercised formally by the authority set up under theRules to grant contract but effectively and for allpractical purposes by the Chief Minister of theState. To whom do you appeal in a Stateadministration against the decision of the ChiefMinister ? The clutch of appeal from Ceasar toCeasar’s wife can only be bettered by appeal fromone's own order to oneself. Therefore this is a case *13* wp11855o23in which the High Court was not at all justified inthrowing out the petition on the untenable groundthat the appellant had an effective alternativeremedy. The High Court did not pose to itself thequestion, who would grant relief when theimpugned order is passed at the instance of theChief Minister of the State. To whom did the HighCourt want the appeal to be filed over the decisionof the Chief Minister. There was no answer audthat by itself without anything more would besufficient to set aside the judgment of the HighCourt.” SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS6.The learned Advocate representing Respondent No.5Zilla Parishad, submits as under:-(a)Both the Petitioners have a strong politicalbackground and this petition is motivated.(b)The petition is filed at a premature stage. There is nocause of action as on date.(c)No proposal has taken shape.(d)The Petitioners have not approached any statutoryauthority to express their grievance and seek indulgence in thematter.(e) This petition cannot be entertained as a WritPetition as there is no personal cause and none of the Petitioners *14* wp11855o23have suffered any personal legal injury. (f) In paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 5 of the affidavit in reply,it is specifically stated that no approval has yet been granted toany suggestion of the Guardian Minister and the Zilla Parishadhas merely received three communications suggesting list ofworks, through several people’s representatives, which cannot befaulted.(g)The Petitioners have the remedy of raising theirobjections before the local authorities or before the DPCafter thematter would reach the DPC.(h)There is no proposal prepared as yet.(i)Several citizens approached the Guardian Ministerrequesting for undertaking works concerning basic civicamenities.(j)A scrutiny of the said proposals, has even not beenstarted.(k)The Zilla Parishad is yet to complete scrutiny of theworks. (l)It is assured that no provision of law or any GRapplicable would be violated.(m)The Zilla Parishad would scrutinize each *15* wp11855o23recommendation strictly in terms of the applicable GovernmentResolutions.(n)The Minister against whom the allegations aremade, is no longer holding any portfolio and is not a Minister.7.The learned Government Pleader submits as under:-(a)This petition is filed in the form of a Writ Petition. Itis not a Public Interest Litigation. There is no personal legalinjury to either of them and this Petition is not maintainable.(b)In the judgment cited by the Petitioners in CharanWaghmare (supra), the Petitioner therein was the Chairman ofthe Finance and Works Committee of the Zilla Parishad and hehad sought quashing of the list of works substitutedhighhandedly on 25.03.2011 for completion under account head3054 in the year 2010-2011. Such substitution was under theorders of the Guardian Minister and the District Collector hadissued a communication dated 28.03.2011 in his capacity asSecretary, DPC for implementing the said substitution, whichwas held to be impermissible. (c)In the instant case, there is neither any concreteproposal, much less, any list of works approved by any authority, *16* wp11855o23nor was any substitution ordered.(d)The impugned communication by the Minister dated09.07.2023 is clearly based upon various citizens and people’srepresentatives who had sought civic amenities. Based on suchdemands for civic amenities, that the Guardian Minister hadforwarded a list of works for consideration to the DistrictCollector of Parbhani.(e)A Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued without thePetitioners having exhausted all available remedies.(f)The Petitioners have not voiced their concern or putforth specific objections through a complaint to any authority.(g)No project has yet been taken up for consideration.(h)The petition is filed prematurely.(i)Paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit in replyfiled by the District Collector dated 06.10.2023, reads as under:-“5.I say and submit that, the Hon'ble GuardianMinister is the Chairman/President of the DistrictPlanning Committee as per Maharashtra DistrictPlanning Committee (Constitution and Functions)Act, 1998 and once decision is taken by the DistrictPlanning Committee would be implemented by allthese local bodies or concerned authorities. That,number of works were recommended / proposed bythe representative from the district, some officebearers and some other persons mentioning thename of works, nature of respective places/region. *17* wp11855o236. I say and submit that, the communication at pageno 84 onwards along with the list which isforwarded to this deponent from the Hon'bleGuardian Minister is to verify whether all theseworks can be taken and whether it is as per therules and procedure. Now the District Collectorwho is Member Secretary of the District PlanningCommittee would forward the list to the concernedauthority/local bodies for verification of proposedwork then the local body would verify the nature ofwork which is proposed, whether it is feasible,technically required, would be submitted by allthese local bodies i.e. zilla parishad, MunicipalCorporation, Municipal Council and NagarPanchayat etc.. after receipt of report and detailsfrom the local bodies, all these proposed works,then it will be placed before the District PlanningCommittee in its meeting.7. I say and submit that, District Planning Committeewould take a decision on all these proposed works,after verification by the local bodies, DistrictPlanning Committee would take decision, whetherto approve all these works or not, if DistrictPlanning Committee take decision, thereafter theworks proposed through different agency which isas per Government Resolution and rules.Thereafter the process of starting of actual workwould be commenced.”SUBMISSIONS BY THE INTERVENORS8.The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of theIntervention Applicant in Civil Application No.13787/2023submits as under:-(a)The Applicant is the Gram Panchayat of Kharaba,
Decision
*18* wp11855o23Taluka Manwat, District Parbhani, appearing through it’sSarpanch.(b)Petitioner No.1 is a politician and belongs to theShiv Sena.(c)Petitioner No.2 is also a politician and belongs to theNationalist Congress Party. Both are motivated in filing thisPetition, though prematurely.(d)No proposal has yet been scrutinized and there is nocause of action at this stage.(e)Some proposals for providing civic amenities, havebeen recommended by the Gram Panchayat itself which is intune with law and the Petitioners cannot oppose evenrecommendation of the works for civic amenities.CONCLUSIONS9.In Charan Waghmare (supra), this Courtentertained the Writ Petition, since 62 proposals were cleared byfollowing the due process of law, the funds were legally allocatedand released and before the works could begin, the GuardianMinister directed the Collector to cancel the approvals to the 62works to be replaced by a list of works suggested as suggested by *19* wp11855o23him. In the case before us, besides the list of works suggested bythe Minister, nothing has progressed. No proposal has taken anyshape.10.The intervention Applicant is the Village GramPanchayat through the Sarpanch, who do not support thePetitioners for the reasons that the Gram Panchayat has itselfsuggested some projects for providing civic amenities to thevillagers and that the Petitioners are politicians who desire toscuttle the public works since they are out of power and desire toestablish their clout in politics in the Gram Panchayat. No faultcan be found if the proposals are suggested by the VillagePanchayat and the elected representatives of the villagers.11.The Zilla Parishad has taken a specific stand that thelist of works received by it from the Guardian Minister have notbeen cleared. The DPC would act strictly in accordance with law.The Zilla Parishad would ensure that the procedure applicable toclear public projects would be strictly followed. No proposal hasbeen formalised. Even the Petitioners are at liberty to makesuggestions if they are peoples’ representative. *20* wp11855o2312.It is apparent that the Petitioners have not sufferedany personal legal injury. Both are politicians. Both have rushedto this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, withouteven assessing as to whether are proposal has been cleared at thebehest of the Minister. They have not expressed any grievancebefore any authority. Be that as it may, we find that manyvillagers and peoples’ representatives approached the GuardianMinister with the hope of getting some basic civic amenities.Now, this cannot be faulted. Nevertheless, there seems to be nodevelopment on any proposal. The G P has stated in the affidavitin reply on behalf of the State, that the DPC would ensure thatany proposal coming from the Gram Panchayat or the villagersor the Peoples’ representative, would be scrutinised strictly inaccordance the rules, provisions of law and the GovernmentResolutions as are applicable.13.In the light of the above, we are of the view that thisPetition has been filed untimely. There is no cause at this stage,as like in the case of Charan Waghmare (supra), wherein thisCourt intervened since the proposals were sanctioned by strictly *21* wp11855o23following the law/procedure and funds were also released, whenthe Minister intervened and got the proposals cancelled only tobe replaced by his list of works. So also, the Petitioners have noteven made any attempt with any authority by voicing theirgrievance, if any. In these peculiar circumstances, we concludethat the Petitioners have no legal injury warranting the filing of aWrit Petition. Insofar as their locus to file a Writ Petition, we areleaving this issue open to be dealt with in an appropriate case,since, if they can point out a legal injury or if they file a PIL, thefact situation would be different. 14.In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Noorder as to costs.15.The pending Civil Applications do not survive andstand disposed off.16.After pronouncement of this order, the learnedAdvocate for the Petitioners submits that the ad-interim orderpassed earlier, be maintained for four weeks. *22* wp11855o2317.The learned Government Pleader opposes the saidrequest.18.Since we have concluded that there is not a singleproposal which is proceeded with or cleared, much lesssanctioned, there is no reason to continue the said order. kps (Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)