IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.6 OF 2008 Vithal Tukaram Deshmukh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C.: The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there are no other rules or regulations framed by the State. Rules in force are under the Maharashtra Mineral Development (Creation & Utilization) Fund Act, 2001 and there are no other provisions. In terms of section 5 of the said Act, utilisation of fund has to be made as per the directives of the Advisory Committee constituted and notified in the Official Gazette. The Advisory Committee in terms of section 7 of the Act has to consist of the specified members in terms of section 7 (3). Further, the Government has the power under section 7(6) to make appointments from time to time but this power is restricted under clauses (g) and (h) of section 7(6) and they have to be duly published in the Official Gazette. In view of the statutory provisions, it can hardly be disputed that the appointments made and the Advisory Board constituted by the State are not in conformity with the statutory provisions. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 31st November, 2007 at Exhibit `E' to the writ petition, the Committees constituted in contravention to the statutory provisions of the Act had made recommendations and those recommendations are arbitrary and have been made by an authority which has no jurisdiction in the eye of law. The learned counsel appearing for the State has fairly stated that they would not permit these committees to disburse the funds and would constitute Advisory Committee in accordance with the provisions of law. Let this be done expeditiously and in any case not later than 4 weeks from today. With the above directions, writ petition stands disposed of. 2. In light of the indisputable provisions of law as afore noticed, it is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Guardian Minister-respondent No.3 herein had presided over the meeting and sanctioned the funds for his own constituency which would also have to be recalled. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the funds have already been spent. Be that as it may, we direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra to examine this aspect of the matter and also to pass appropriate orders in that behalf. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is made absolute. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.