https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280167 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. en-us Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:27:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280167 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280167