Abasaheb D. Shinde, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have put-forth the following main prayers :

                    “B. The impugned Government Resolution dated 25.08.2025 issued by the present respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Secretary, Other Backward Classes Welfare Department to the extent of cancelling administrative sanction granted to the development works undertaken by the petitioners in respect of development works to the extent of Villages namely i.e. Khoklewadi, Limbewadi, Taldulwadi, Kodri, Suppa (j.), Shirsam (Sh.), Padegaon, from Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani & Villages namely i.e. Peth Shivni, Shirsam, Martandwadi, from Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani may kindly be quashed and set aside.

                    C. The respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Director, Other Backward Classes Welfare Department may kindly be directed to restore the administrative sanction to the development works of the villages namely i.e. Khoklewadi, Limbewadi, Taldulwadi, Kodri, Suppa (j.), Shirsam (Sh.), Padegaon, from Tq. Gangakhed & Villages namely i.e. Peth Shivni, Shirsam, Martandwadi, from Tq. Palam as per the Government Resolution dated 31.03.2025.”

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are duly elected Sarpanches of the respective villages from Gangakhed and Palam Talukas, District Parbhani. With a wider object of providing essential basic facilities to the backward section of a society, including Laman, Banjara, Vanjari, Dhangar, Pardhi etc., living in remote areas in the entire State, the State Government by Government Resolution dated 31.03.2025 granted administrative sanction of Rs.75,66,56,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Crores Sixty Six Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand only) under the head of ‘Vasantraro Naik Tanda Vasti Sudhar Yojana’. Out of said funds, a sum of Rs. 45,39,53,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Crores Thirty Nine Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only) was sanctioned immediately.

4. It is further case of the petitioners that since the villages to which the petitioners are representing were included in the said scheme, the necessary work orders were also issued by Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Gangakhed, on 22.04.2025 and 23.04.2025 respectively. Pursuant to the said work orders, the petitioners purchased the necessary equipments for undertaking the work of electrification and construction of cement concrete roads. While the development works were in progress and reached at an advanced stage, respondent Nos.1 and 2 granted stay to the said development works especially in Nanded, Hingoli, Beed, Parbhani and Buldhana districts. The petitioners, therefore, submitted a representation to the respondents requesting to restore the said work.

5. It is further contended by the petitioners that the report submitted by respondent No.5/Assistant Director, Other Backward Classes Welfare Department, Parbhani dated 21.07.2025, to the respondent No.2, showed that the works in petitioners’ villages have already commenced and are in progress.

6. The petitioners further contend that despite this fact, the respondent No.1, by the impugned Government Resolution dated 25.08.2025, cancelled the earlier administrative sanction granted vide Government Resolution dated 31.03.2025, to the extent of Nanded, Beed, Hingoli and Parbhani districts and sanctioned new development works. The petitioners, therefore, have approached this Court by challenging the impugned Government Resolution to their extent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the administrative sanction granted vide Government Resolution dated 31.03.2025 was in the interest of public at large, more particularly the tribal and backward region therefore, the same ought not to have been cancelled arbitrarily, thereby depriving the said community of the basic facilities. He further submits that the action of respondents is nothing but a colourable exercise of power and suffers from vice of manifest arbitrariness and hence, the same is illegal, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, urged that the impugned Government Resolution deserves to be quashed and set-aside by directing the respondents to restore the administrative sanction for the purpose of carrying out the development works in their respective villages.

8. Per contra, learned AGP would submit that the public representatives of Nanded, Parbhani, Hingoli and Beed districts requested for cancellation of works sanctioned pursuant to Government Resolution dated 31.03.2025 by further requesting to approve new works. It is in this premise that the development works were stayed on 24.04.2025, to the extend of the said districts.

9. He further submits that out of 13 sanctioned works from Gangakhed Taluka, 11 villages to which work orders were issued could not complete the same due to a policy freeze. He would submit that after submission of a comprehensive proposal, a policy decision has been taken by the State Government to cancel all the works in these four districts by granting administrative sanction for new works. Eventually, 578 works have been cancelled and 342 new works have been approved, including four new works in Parbhani District.

10. Learned AGP strenuously contends that the grant of administrative sanction is an internal government process and does not create any absolute right in favour of the petitioners. Likewise, cancellation of administrative sanction is a policy decision and no fundamental right is vested in the petitioners which can said to have been violated. He, therefore, urged that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGP for the State at length and perused the record.

12. Indisputably, the Government Resolution dated 31.03.2025, thereby granting administrative sanction for the development works was issued with an object of providing basic essential facilities such as electricity, roads etc. to the public at large from Backward Section. It is pertinent to note that the villages from the entire State were included in the said Government Resolution. It is also a matter of record that, pursuant to the said administrative sanction, the work orders for starting the development works in the petitioners’ villages were also issued. It further reveals that the petitioners have purchased the necessary equipments and the material. The petitioners have placed on record the vouchers of the purchases. When the development works were actually started and were in progress, all of a sudden, the State Government initially granted stay on 24.04.2025 and cancelled the earlier administrative sanction by the impugned Government Resolution in respect of the aforesaid four districts merely because the public representatives have recommended the new works. We thus find that there is no uniformity in taking the decision for cancellation of earlier administrative sanction. Had it been so, the administrative sanction would have been cancelled for the entire State, instead of restricting it to the extent of four districts. We thus find that, cancelling the administrative sanction granted to the development works only to the extent of the petitioners’ villages without any satisfactory reason, merely on the recommendation of public representatives is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

13. This Court at Principal Seat had an occasion to consider the similar issue in Public Interest Litigation No. 7 of 2024 (Ravindra Hemraj Dhangekar Vs. District Collector, Pune District and Others) decided on 22.03.2024 wherein this Court has observed thus:-

                    “26. We need not reiterate that all State actions are subject to well settled principle of non-arbitrariness in State actions as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as that all Government decisions will have to necessarily conform to the legal principle of State action being non-arbitrary. Any decision of the State Government sans reasons, is manifestly arbitrary and in case any such decision of the State Government is found suffering from the manifest arbitrariness, this Court, in our opinion, is vested with ample powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to strike down such decision of the State or its instrumentalities.

                    27. From the conspectus of the facts of the present case, as discussed above, we have no hesitation to conclude that while issuing the impugned Government Resolutions dated 27th July 2023 and 22nd August 2023, the State Government has not given any plausible reason and the impugned Government Resolutions have resulted in deprivation of certain basic civic amenities to the residents of a particular area falling within the municipal limits of the Corporation. The respondents have utterly failed to establish any overwhelming public interest or any other legally sustainable ground for issuing the impugned Government Resolutions dated 27th July 2023 and 22nd August 2023.

                    30. In the instant case, the subsequent Government Resolutions have manifestly resulted in withdrawal of certain works, that too, relating to providing civic amenities. We have already held that no reason comes-forth from the respondents/authorities justifying issuance of the subsequent Government Resolutions though they resulted in denial of civic amenities which would have been made available to a large population in terms of the earlier Government Resolutions. Thus, the judgment in Gowardhan (supra) does not help the respondents in any manner.

                    31. In view of the discussion made above, we have no hesitation to hold, as already observed above, that issuance of the subsequent Government Resolutions is manifestly arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and does not subserve any public interest and hence, illegal.

                    32. Having found the subsequent Government Resolutions not adhering to the principle of non-arbitrariness in the State action, we now need to consider as to what reliefs in the facts of the present case, at present, can be granted in this PIL petition.”

14. In the light of aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that, the action of respondents, thereby cancelling the earlier administrative sanction to the extent of petitioners’ villages is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set-aside and the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

15. In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

i) The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’.

ii) The respondents shall undertake the exercise of restoration of the administrative sanction of the development works to the extent of petitioners’ villages within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of reciept of this order.

iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.