Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against order of the Division Bench of Bombay
High Court which dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants, Raja Shri
Shivrai Pratishthan, Pune and Siddhai Mahila Mandal, Kolhapur, questioning
government resolution dated April 20, 2002 whereby names of the appellants were
excluded from the list of institutions selected for running Vruddhashrams on non-
grant-aid basis.
The appellants are non-government organizations. In furtherance of the
policy decision taken by the Government of Maharashtra to establish homes for
senior citizens under the Matoshree Vruddhashram Scheme (for short ‘the
Scheme’), the
appellants established old age homes at Pune and Kolhapur respectively. In 1995, the
State Government framed rules for providing grant-in-aid to recognized
Vruddhashrams. The same were circulated vide Resolution dated 17th November,
1995. The Vruddhashrams established by the appellants were among the institutions
selected for grant-in-aid. After six years, the State Government reviewed its decision
and issued Resolution dated 3rd December, 2001 for conducting Vruddhashrams
through private voluntary institutions on permanent non-grant-aid basis. Para 2 of
the resolution envisaged the issue of an advertisement by Director, Social Welfare for
inviting proposals for conducting Vruddhashrams on non-grant-aid basis with a
stipulation that all recognized Vruddhashrams will be entitled to apply and the
institutions whose work was to be found satisfactory and who agreed to be abide by
the terms and conditions enumerated in the government resolution will be given
preference.
In response to the advertisement issued by Director, Social Welfare,
Maharashtra, the appellants submitted applications along with the required
information and documents. Likewise, the private respondents submitted
applications for being selected for running Vruddhashrams. Vide Resolution dated
20th April, 2002, the government notified the listing of institutions selected for
conducting Vruddhashrams on non-grant-aid basis. The names of the appellants did
not figure in that list. Instead, the private respondents were shown as the institutions
selected for running Vruddhashrams at Pune and Kolhapur respectively.
The appellants challenged resolution dated 20th April, 2002 by contending
that their non-selection for running Vruddhashrams on non-grant-aid basis is wholly
arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Another plea taken by the appellants was that before rejecting their applications, the
concerned authorities did not afford them opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the
impugned action is liable to be declared as vitiated due to violation of rules of natural
justice.
In the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.3091 of 2002, Shri N.N.
Bhadikar, Deputy Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department,
Government of Maharashtra, stated that at the time of inspection of Vruddhashrams
by the Director of Social Welfare on 21.11.2000, it was revealed that a number of
Vruddhashrams were not running as per the norms laid down by the Government
and in the light of his report, it was decided to implement the Scheme through non-
government organizations on permanent non-grant-aid basis. However, he did not
controvert the assertion made in the writ petition that the Vruddhashram established
by the appellant, Raja Shri Shivraya Pratishthan, Pune was being conducted
satisfactorily and that there was no deficiency which could justify denial of the benefit
of para 2 of resolution dated 3rd December, 2001. In the writ petition filed by
appellant, Siddhai Mahila Mandal, Kolhapur, neither any counter affidavit was filed
nor any material was placed before the High Court to show that there was any
deficiency in the running of Vruddhashrams.
By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions by
observing that the allotment of Vruddhashrams on grant-in-aid basis did not create
any vested right in favour of the appellants and that the appellants cannot complain
against the revised policy decision or claim that they should have been heard before
rejection of their applications.
Shri V.A. Bobde, learned senior counsel appearing for Raja Shri Shivrai
Pratishthan extensively referred to the pleadings of the special leave petitions,
documents filed by the parties to show that Vruddhashram established by his client is
being conducted satisfactorily and that there has been no complaint from any inmates
about any deficiency of service. He also also referred to the inspection reports
prepared by the departmental authorities to show that the Vruddhashram is being
conducted as per norms and satisfactorily. He pointed out that despite non exclusion
of the appellant’s name in the list of the institutions selected for conducting
Vruddhashrams on non-grant-aid basis, his client has been running the
Vruddhashram at Pune to the full satisfaction of the inmates. Both the learned
counsel argued that in the absence of any adversity in the running of Vruddhashrams
by their clients, the government’s decision not to select them for conducting
Vruddhashrams on non-grant-aid basis should be declared arbitrary and violative of
the doctrine of equality.
Shri V.N. Raghupathy, counsel appearing for the Government of
Maharashtra could not draw our attention to any document or other evidence from
which it can be inferred that the appellants have been conducting Vruddhashrams in
violation of the norms laid down by the government or that their performance was/is
unsatisfactory. Learned counsel also could not show as to why the appellants were
not given benefit of para 2 of resolution dated 3rd December, 2001. He, however,
reiterated that non selection of the appellants for conducting Vruddhashrams on non-
grant-aid basis was as per the policy decision taken by the government and the
institutions which were found suitable were selected by the competent authority.
We have considered the respective submissions and scrutinized the
records. Since the respondents have failed to produce any tangible evidence to prima
facie establish that conducting of Vruddhashrams by the appellants was
unsatisfactory and that there was some valid reason for denying them the benefit of
preference clause embodied in resolution dated 3rd December, 2001, it must be held
that their non selection is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It is true that one time selection of the appellants for conducting
Vruddhashrams under the Scheme on grant-in-aid basis did not create any vested
right in their favour but there can be no gainsaying that in terms of the policy
decision taken by the government, they were entitled to preferential treatment in the
matter of selection for conducting Vruddhashrams on non-grant-aid basis. Once the
government laid down the policy for selection, the same was binding on all its
functionaries including the Director, Social Welfare and the applications of the
appellants could not have been indirectly rejected without any rhyme or reason.
So far as the case of Siddhai Mahila Mandal, Kolhapur, is concerned, there
is no report by any officer indicating that the functioning of this institution was not
satisfactory. Even in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, it has not been
stated that the work of appellant was unsatisfactory. In this view of matter it is not
possible for us to accept the justifications for overlooking the claim of the appellant
and it must be held that non selection of the appellant is arbitrary and wholly
unjustified.
Ordinarily, we would have remitted the matter to the State Government
for re-considering the matter afresh in
accordance with law but, in our view, the facts of the case are so telling that it would
not be advisable to remit the matter to the State Government. Rather it is a fit case in
which direction deserves to be given to the State Government to include the names of
the appellants in the list of institutions selected for conducting Vruddhashrams on
non-grant-aid basis.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside. The
writ petitions filed by the appellants are allowed and the State of Maharashtra is
directed to include the names of the appellants in the list of institutions selected by
Government order dated 20th April, 2002, by making amendment therein. This order
must be carried out within one month from today.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, July 28, 2008.