1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5158 OF 2010 1) Mahesh s/o Rameshrao Duse and others. - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Sandeep S.Deshmukh,Advocate for Petitioners; Mrs.AV Gondhalekar, AGP for Resp.No.1-State; Mr.UB Bondar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE : 23rd September, 2010. COURT’S ORDER (PER:-B.R.GAVAI,J.) 1) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2) By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the Government Resolutions dated 1st August, 2009; 9th September, 2009 and 17th March, 2010, 2 issued by Respondent No.1-State, whereby the Government Resolution dated 23rd March, 2002 came to be cancelled. 3) According to the petitioners, they were appointed as Technical Service Providers pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 23rd March, 2002, for the purposes of effective implementation of different Schemes relating to drinking water in rural areas. It is the contention of the petitioners that by the impugned Government Resolutions, the Respondent- State sought to substitute the Scheme of getting the work done through the Technical Service Providers, by appointing Engineers on contractual basis. 4) Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the reasons assigned by the Respondent No.1 in withdrawing the earlier Government Resolutions and withdrawing the work to be carried out by the Technical Service Providers, are totally unsustainable. The learned Counsel further rests 3 the claim of the petitioners on doctrines of ‘promissory estoppel’ and `Legitimate expectation’. 5) We firstly find that the petitioners have no legally enforceable right to approach this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the most, the claim put-forth by the petitioner would rest on contractual obligations arrived at between the petitioners and the respective Zilla Parishads for implementing the Schemes for supply of drinking water in rural areas. If the petitioners have any grievance as regards termination of the contract by the Zilla Parishads or otherwise, they would always be entitled to invoke the ordinary remedy available to them under the Civil laws. 6) In so far as the claim of the petitioners concerning the doctrine of `promissory estoppel’, the onus lies on a party claiming doctrine of `promissory estoppel’ to prove certain ingredients, viz. 4 i) certain promises were made by the Government; ii) On the basis of those promises, the party, has changed/altered its position to its detriment; and iii) the Government resiled from those promises thereby placing the other party, claiming benefit of doctrine of `promissory estoppel’, to suffer substantial losses. We find none of the aforesaid ingredients are involved in the present case. 7) In so far as doctrine of `legitimate expectation’ is concerned, the Respondent-State cannot be said to be bound by its policy to get the work done only through contractors. If the Government, for some reasons, finds that the implementation of the scheme, through contractors, is not feasible and viable and for some valid reasons, it would be more appropriate and beneficial to get the work done through the staff employed by the Zilla Parishads; no fault can be found with the action taken by the respondent-State. The only limited scope in such 5 matters while exercising the powers of judicial review, would be as to whether the reasons given by the State Government for change of the policy, are unreasonable, arbitrary or irrational. Whether the reasons given are sufficient or not would fall beyond the scope of judicial review of the administrative action. The reasons given by the Respondent-State in its Government Resolution dated 9th September, 2009, are – i) In certain districts, most of the works under the scheme are entrusted to only one Technical Service Provider; ii) since various works have been entrusted to one Technical Service Provider, the works are not properly supervised and assessed and the standard of the work cannot be maintained; and iii)There is growing tendency in the Technical Service Providers to prepare schemes of big budget and obtain works of such big budget schemes, since they get 7% remuneration/fees in preparing Plants/estimates and for technical supervision. 8) The reasons given by the State in the impugned Government Resolution could not be said to be arbitrary, irrational, and in any case, not so unreasonable, as could be governed by 6 `Wednesbury’s principles of unreasonableness’. 9) In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The petition stands dismissed. 10) It is made clear that the whatever observations made by us, as aforesaid, are only for the limited purpose of examining as to whether the petitioners are entitled to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case the petitioners intend to take recourse to any ordinary remedy available to them under law, the aforesaid observations would not come in their way. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/