Court stresses limited review on government fund decisions, warns against interference unless unfair or mala fide

The court emphasized limited judicial review in challenging government policy decisions on fund allocation, stating guidelines are advisory. It cautioned against interference unless decisions are unfair or mala fide. The court clarified the Board's role in program supervision, not budget allocation, and rejected claims of illegal timing in budget announcements. Dismissing arguments on proportionate fund distribution based on backwardness, the court noted the government's discretion in development decisions. Allegations of political favoritism were rejected due to lack of evidence. The petition was dismissed, underscoring the need to respect government decisions in development.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to the order allocating funds to Panchayat Samities within Bharatpur District.

Contentions:
1. The Government must adhere to guidelines for fund allocation.
2. Recommendations of the Board overseeing development were overlooked.
3. Budget announcement for Panchayat Samiti a day before scheduled meeting.
4. Allegations of political influence favoring certain Panchayat Samities.
5. Alleged violation of fair and proportionate budget allocation principles.

Judgment Details:
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in challenging government policy decisions, highlighting the government's role in development and fund allocation. Guidelines were deemed advisory, not legally binding. The court cautioned against interfering with policy decisions unless they are unfair, unjust, or mala fide. Judicial review is constrained by specific legal boundaries. The court cited precedents to support this position.

Regarding the timing of budget allocation before the Board meeting, the court clarified the Board's limited role in supervising program implementation, not budget allocation. Proposals were solicited from Panchayat Samities, and the petitioner's proposal was duly considered for fund allocation. The court rejected the argument that the budget allocation was illegal due to the timing.

The petitioner's contention on proportionate fund distribution based on area backwardness was dismissed. The court noted the relative nature of "backwardness" and the lack of evidence to support Nagar's comparative backwardness. Decisions on development areas are within the government's discretion, and the court cannot adjudicate on disputed factual matters in writ jurisdiction. The allocation to Panchayat Samiti, Nagar, indicated due consideration of the petitioner's proposal.

The court rejected the claim that Panchayat Samiti, Kaman, was favored due to political interference, citing the entitlement range for its budget allocation. Lack of evidence supported the contention of undue influence by respondents. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, emphasizing the importance of respecting government decisions in development matters.

---