:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2751 OF 2006 1. Shri Balasaheb Dhondiram Jagdale Age-53 years. Occu – Agriculture, At Post – Bidal,Tq. Man, Dist. Satara. 2. Shri.Jaysingh mahadeo Chavan, Age-48 years, Occu : - Agriculture, Tq.Karad, Dist. Satara – 415 109. ..Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra 2. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 3. The Hon'ble Finance Minister, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. ..Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 State. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2757 OF 2006 Shri.Anil Babar Age – 56 years, Occu : Agriculture and Social Service, Residing at Gardi, Tq.Khanpur, District Sangli. ..Petitioner. Versus :2: 1. State of Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 3. The Secretary, Planning Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. ..Respondents. Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b.S.B.Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 State. WITH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.62 OF 2004 Shri.Sadashivrao Abaji Pol, Adult, residing at Mardi, Tq.Man, Dist. Satara. ..Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 2. The Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra, Raj Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 032. 3. The Chief Minister, :3: the Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 4. The Chairman, Legislative Council, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 032. 5. The Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 032. 6. The Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 032. 7. The Finance and Planning Minister, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 8. The Minister, Irrigation (Excluding Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation and Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation), Mumbai – 032. 9. The Minister, Irrigation (Including Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation and Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation), Mumbai – 032. 10. The Principal Secretary (Finance), Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai – 032. 11. The Principal Secretary (Planning), Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai – 032. 12. The Chairman, Statutory Development Board for Rest of Maharashtra having its office on 18th Floor, New Administrative Building, Mumbai – 032. :4: 13. The Chairman, Marathwada Statutory Development Board having its office at Central Administrative Building, Ground Floor, West Side, Aurangabad – 431001. 14. The Chairman, Vidharbha Statutory Development Board having its office at B-23/1, South Ambazari Road, Nagpur – 440 010. 15. The Chairman, Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, Sinchan Bhavan, Barne Road, Pune – 411 011. ..Respondents. Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Counsel with Mr.Ashok Misal with Mr.P.A.Pol for the Petitioner. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 7 to 11. Mr.Shrihari Aney, Senior Advocate with Ms.Akhila Kaushik i/b.Madhav Jamdar for Respondent No.14. Mr.Vijay Patil for Respondent No.15. WITH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5871 OF 2003 Dr.Jagannath Sitaram Dhone, Ex.MLA, President of Vidharbha Mukti Maha Morcha, Residing at 8, Kavita Apartment, Gorakshan Road, Akola, Tq. and Dist. Akola ..Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, :5: through Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Finance Secretary, representing Ministry of Finance, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. Secretary, representing Department of Planning, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4. Shri.Jayant Patil, Minister of Finance, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 5. Dr.Krushnachandra Raghunathrao Bhoite, “Nilgiri”, Laxmi Nagar, Phaltan, Tq.Phaltan, Dist. Satara. ..Respondents. Mr.S.G.Aney, Senior Advocate with Akhila Kaushik with Madhav Jamdar for the Petitioners. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 State. Mr.A.V.Anturkar for Respondent No.5. WITH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5872 OF 2003 1. Shri.Bhaurao s/o.Shri Tulshiramji Deshmukh Age-64 years, Occu : Member of Legislative Council, State of Maharashtra, resident of Plot No.3, Subodh Colony, Near Vidharbha College, Amravati – 444604. :6: 2. Shri.Nitin s/o. Shri Jairamji Gadkari, Age-46 years, Occu – Agriculture and Business, Member of Legislative Council, Resident of Gadakari Wada, Upadhye Road, Mahal, Nagpur. 3. Shri.Diwakar s/o.Shri.Narayan Raote Age-49 years, Occu : - Business, Member of Legislative Council, State of Maharashtra, resident of 108, Dnyan Sagar, R.S.K.Bole Marg, Opposite Portuguese Church, Dadar (West), Mumbai. 4. Shri.Dnyaneshwar s/o.Shri.Mahadeorao Dhane Patil Age-about 43 years, Occu : Agriculturist, Member of Legislative Assembly, resident of Mahadeo Nagar, Amravati, Dist.Amravati. 5. Shri.Devendra s/o.Shri.Gangadharrao Fadanavis, Age-33 years, Occu : Member of Legislative Assembly, resident of Dharampeth, Nagpur – 10. ..Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400034. 2. The Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400034. :7: 3. The Chairman, Legislative Council, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai. 4. The Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai. 5. The Secretary, Legislature, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai. 6. The Finance and Planning Minister, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032. 7. The Irrigation Minister (excluding Krishna Valley Irrigation Development Corporation and Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation), Mantralaya, Mumbai – 032. 8. The Irrigation Minister,(Krishna Valley Irrigation Development Corporation and Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation), Mantralaya, Mumbai – 032. 9. The Principal Secretary (Finance), Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 034. 10. The Principal Secretary (Planning), Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 034. 11. The Chairman, Statutory Board for :8: Vidarbha, South Ambazari Road, Nagpur – 440 010. 12. The Chairman, Statutory Board for Marathwada, Aurangabad – 431001. 13. The Chairman, Statutory Board for the rest of Maharashtra, Pune. 14. Dr.Krushnachandra Raghunathrao Bhoite, r/o. “Nilgiri”, Laxmi Nagar, Phaltan, Tq.Phaltan, Dist. Satara. ..Respondents. Mr.S.G.Aney, Senior Advocate with Akhila Kaushik with Madhav Jamdar for the Petitioners. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 6 to 10. Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for Respondent No.14. WITH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.74 OF 2003 1. Dr.Krushnachandra Raghunathrao Bhoite Age 68 years, Occu.- Social Service, being the ex-member of Legislative Assembly of Phaltan Khandala Constituency, "Nilgiri", Laxmi Nagar, Phaltan, Tal.Phaltan, District-Satara 2. Shri.Vasant Marutrao Gaikwad Age 52 years, Occ.- Social Service, The Chairman of Panchayat Samiti Phaltan, District-satari .. Petitioners Versus :9: 1. Union of India (Summons to be served on the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Union of India under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, 2. State of Maharashtra (Summons to be served on the learned Addl.Government Pleader appearing for the State Government under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 3. The Hon'ble Chiarman Legislative Council, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai. 4. The Hon'ble Speaker of Legislative Assembly, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai. 5. Shri.Bhaurao, son of Shri.Tulshiramji Deshmukh, Adult, Occ.Social Service being the member of the Legislative Assembly, State of Maharashtra, Residing at Plot No.3, Subodh Colony, Near Vidarbha College, Amravati- 444604. 6. Krishna Valley Development Corporation A Corporation established under the Provisions of the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Act (Act No.15 of 1996) having its office at Pune- 411 001. .. Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar with S.B.Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Mr.R.B.Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General with Anurag H. Gokhale with Y.R.Mishra with A. Shah and A.M.Sethna for Respondent No.1. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.2. Mr.S.G.Aney, Senior Advocate with Ms.Akhila Kaushik for :10: Respondent No.5. Mr.R.Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vijay Patil for Respondent No.6 – Krishna Valley Development Corporation. WITH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.63 OF 2004 1. Anilrao Kaljerao Babar R/o Village Gardi, Dal.Khanapur Dist.Sangli, 2. Shashikant Jayantrao Shinde R/o Humgaon, Tal.Jawali, Dist:Satara .. Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India, (Notice be served on the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Union of India. 2. State of Maharashtra Notice be served on the learned Addl.Government Pleader. 3. Hon'ble Chiarman, Legislative Council, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai 4. Hon'ble Speaker of Legislative Council, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai. 5. Hon'ble Chief Minister, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya Mumbai 400 032. 6. The Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. :11: 7. The Secretary, Legislature, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai. 8. The Hon'ble Finance & Planning Minister, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya Mumbai 400 032. 9. The Hon'ble Irrigation Minister (Excluding Krishna Valley Irrigation Development Corportion and Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation) Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 10. The Hon'ble Irrigation Minister (Krishna Valley Irrigation Development Corportion and Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation) Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 11. The Principal Secretary (Finance) Govt of Maharashtra, Mantralaya Mumbai 400 032. 12. The Principal Secretary (Planning) Govt of Maharashtra, Mantralaya Mumbai 400 032. 13. The Chairman, Statutory Board for Vidharbha, South Ambazari Road, Nagpur 440 010. 14. The Chairman, Statutory Board for Marathwada, Aurangabad. 15. The Chairman Statutory Board for Rest of Maharashtra :12: Mumbai. 16. The Maharashtra Krishna Valley, Development Corporation having its office at Pune 411 001. 17. Dr.Krushnachandra Raghunathrao Bhoite Age Adult, Occu.- Social Service, being the ex-member of Legislative Assembly of Phaltan Khandala Constituency, "Nilgiri", Laxmi Nagar, Phaltan, Tal.Phaltan, District-Satara 18. Shri.Vasant Marutrao Gaikwad Age Adult, Occ.- Social Service, The Chairman of Panchayat Samiti Phaltan, Tal.Phaltan, District-satara 19. Shri.Bhaurao, son of Shri.Tulshiramji Deshmukh, Age about 65 years, Occ. Member of the Legislative Council,, State of Maharashtra, Residing at Plot No.3, Subodh Colony, Near Vidarbha College, Amravati- 444604. 20. Shri.Nitin S/o.Jairamji Gadkari Aged about 47 years, Occ. Agriculture & Business, and Member of Legislative Council, Resident of Gadkari Wada, Upadhye Road, Mahal, Nagpur. 21. Shri.Diwakar S/o Narayan Raote, Aged about 50 years, Occ.Business & Member of Legislative Council, State of Maharashtra, Resident of 108, Dnyan Sagar, RSK Bole marg, Opposite Portuguese Church, :13: Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028. 22. Shri.Dnyaneshwar S/o.Mahadeorao Dhane Patil, Aged about 44 years, Occu. Agriculturist & Member of Legislative Assembly, Resident of Mahadeo Nagar, Amravati, District Amravati. 23. Shri.Devendra S/o.Gangadharrao Fadnavis, Aged about 34 years, Occ.Member of Legislative Assembly, Resident of Dharmapeth, Nagpur - 440 010. .. Respondents Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Counsel with S.G.Vaske for the Petitioner. Mr.R.B.Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General with Anurag H. Gokhale with Y.R.Mishra with Afroz Shah & A.M.Sethna for Respondent No.1-Union of India. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.2,5 to 12. Mr.S.G.Aney, Senior Advocate with Akhila Kaushik with Madhav Jamdar for Respondent No.13. Mr.Vijay Patil for Respondent No.16 – Krishna Valley Development Corporation. Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for Respondent No.17. WITH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6671 OF 2006 Shri.Ramesh Narayan Dhaigude Age 28 years Occ.Agriculture, Residing at Ahire, Tal: Khandala, Dist: Satara .. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra :14: (Summons to be served on the learned Addl.Government Pleader appearing for the State Government under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 2. Hon'ble Chief Minister, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya Mumbai 400 032. (Summons to be served on the learned Addl.Government Pleader appearing for the State Government under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 3. The Hon'ble Finance & Planning Minister, (Summons to be served on the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State Government under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 4. The Chairman, Statutory Development Board For Rest of Maharashtra Having its office at 18th Floor, New Administrative Building, Mumbai 400 032. 5. The Chairman, Marathwada Statutory Development Board Having its office at Central Administrative Building, Ground Floor, West Side, Aurangabad - 431 001. 6. The Chairman Vidarbha Statutory Development Board Having its office at- D23/1, South Ambazari, Nagpur- 440 010. 7. The Secretary, Irrigation Department, :15: Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 8. Union of India (Summons to be served on the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Union of India under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. .. Respondents None for the Petitioners. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 7. Akhila Kaushik with Mr.Madhav Jamdar for Respondent No.6. Mr.R.B.Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General with Anurag H. Gokhale with Y.R.Mishra with Afroz Shah & A.M.Sethna for Respondent No.8-Union of India. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 29th NOVEMBER,2007. JUDGMENT DECLARED ON : 6TH MAY,2008. JUDGMENT :(PER : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) 1. In all the above Petitions, the issue involved is with regard to the special responsibility cast on the Governor of the State of Maharashtra, with regard to development of Vidharbha area. The present area of Vidharbha was earlier included in the erstwhile state of Madhya Pradesh. The demand for the separate state of Vidharbha was duly endorsed by the then Madhya Pradesh Legislature.This was seen as a conflict with the demand made by the Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement in the erstwhile area of Bombay for the creation of a Marathi speaking state. :16: 2. In furtherance of the proposal of a Linguistic Marathi speaking province,the then leaders of Vidharbha and Western Maharashtra entered into an agreement known as the Akola pact for formation of a federal state. Vidharbha still remained part of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh After India gained Independence, a State Re-organization Commission was formed under Mr.Justice Fazal Ali. The leaders of the Sanyukta Maharashtra movement solemnly assured the leaders of the then Vidharbha region and other prominent Marathi speaking regions like Marathwada that if a Marathi state was formed. They would ensure the equitable distribution of the state resources. This assurance was reduced in writing as the "Nagpur Pact" in 1953. 3. The Fazal Ali commission recommended a separate state of Vidharbha in 1955.However, the report also recommended that constitutional recognition could be given to the Nagpur agreement. The members from the other areas of Maharashtra gave full support to this proposal. A new clause was thereafter added to Article 371 of the Constitution of India with the consent of the elected members of the State Legislature. 4. Thus, the erstwhile State of Bombay was formed which included the Vidharbha area. The seventh amendment to the :17: Constitution of India was adopted and passed including Article 371 (2) in the Constitution of India in the year 1956. 5. Agitations for a separate State for Gujurat and Vidharbha arose in the period between 1956-1960. The then Chief Minister of the State of Bombay promised to honour the Nagpur agreement before the Legislative Assembly.Vidharbha was given reassurance for implementation of the Nagpur agreement and Article 371 (2) of the Constitution of India. 6. The formation of the present State of Maharashtra took place in the year 1960, and with the passage of time the problem of regional imbalance aggravated to a large extent. Hence, a "Fact finding committee on Regional Imbalances" was formed under the Chairmanship of Dr. V.M Dandekar to undertake a sectoral study of the backlog in areas like irrigation, technical education, health, roads etc. 7. The Committee found backlog of 38% in irrigation in theVidharbha region, a backlog of 22.85% in Marathwada region and 39% in the Rest of Maharashtra area. The report of the Dandekar Committee was not accepted by the Government of Maharashtra but the Government allocated special funds for removal of backlog as identified by the said Committee. :18: 8. In the year 1984, a resolution was passed by both the Houses of the State Assembly requesting the President to use his powers under Article 371(2) of the Constitution of India. No action was taken over this resolution and the agitation for separate State of Vidharbha was launched. 9. After a period of 10 years, in 1994 the President of India made an order dated 9th March 1994 providing for special responsibility of the Governor of Maharashtra for the establishment of separate Development Boards for Vidharbha, Marathwada and the rest of Maharashtra, and for matters specified in sub clauses (b) and (c) of Article 371(2) of the Constitution of India. 10. In exercise of the powers conferred by the President's order, the Governor of Maharashtra formed the Development Boards for the aforementioned areas in 1994. In 1995, the Indicator and Backlog Committee was formed to look into the levels of development in the State and to suggest equitable allocations of development expenditure over the area of the three Development Boards. The report was also submitted to the Governor of Maharashtra. The committee reported a sectoral backlog of 47% in Vidhrabha, 28% in Marathwada and 23% in the rest of Maharashtra. The report also pointed towards 55% irrigational backlog in Vidharbha, 32.37% in Marathwada and 12.59% in Rest of Maharashtra. The Forum For Removal of Backlog and Development(Legislative Branch) was formed in 2001 :19: constituting members of the backlog areas requested the Governor to issue directions to the State Government to make available necessary funds to remove the backlog in the irrigation sector. 11. The Governor of Maharashtra thereafter issued directives for allocation of Rs. 2476 crores for removal of backlog, in exercise of his powers conferred by the Presidential Order and paragraph 7 and 8 of the Development Board for Vidharbha and Marathwada and rest Of Maharashtra Order, 1994. 12. Again, further directives were issued in the year 2003 for removal of backlog. However, in the Annual Financial Statement of 2003-04 tabled before the House did not make any adequate provision as per the Governor's directives. 13. In 2004, the Governor of Maharashtra issued further directives under Rule 7 of the Development Board Order,1994 for providing for funds in the 2004-05 Annual Plan and the same were tabled before the House. Directives of Governor for an outlay of Rs.4685 crores for distribution in the irrigation sector in the Annual Plan for 2005-06 were issued. On request of non- availability of funds the Governor reviewed his directives and ordered a fresh outlay of Rs, 1942 crores. Meanwhile the Government of Maharashtra sought the opinion of the learned Advocate General with respect to the powers of the Governor to :20: amend, alter or review his own directives. The Learned Advocate General viewed that the Governor could review his own Directives. 14. On the availability of advanced funds, the Government proposed to re-approriate the budgetary allocations, which was introducesd without the consent of the Governor of Maharashtra. The Governor opined that the Government should have sought his approval for the proposed re-appropriation. The learned Advocate General Opined that the Governor's approval should have been taken for re-appropriation on Supplementary Demands for 2005-06. 15. Fresh directives were issued by the Governor of Maharashtra in the year 2006-07 after taking into consideration the previous directives, mis-match of directives,non-implementation of directives etc., he concluded that a backlog in irrigation reduced by a mere 21% and ordered to release Rs. 2480 crores. Later though the above directives have been complied with, the petitioners all now basically seeking clarifications with respect to Article 371 (2), its constitutionality and the powers of the Governor, i.e, whether the same are mandatorily to be followed by the State Legislature. :21: 16. The above cases involve important questions relating to the powers of the Governor under Article 371 (2) of the Constitution of India and the constitutional validity of the Development Boards for Vidarbha, Marathwada and Rest of Maharashtra) Order, 1994. Several writ petitions in the public interest were filed in this regard. These are Writ Petition Nos. 5871 and 5872 of 2003, 2751, 2757 and 6671 of 2006, as also PIL Nos. 62, 63 and 74 of 2003. These petitions have a similar factual background, which is set out as follows: 17. First, it is necessary to provide a brief outline of the history of the integration of Vidarbha and Marathwada with the State of Maharashtra. The State of Vidarbha was originally a part of Berar and the Central Provinces. A list of some of the important events is now detailed chronologically. On 8.8. 1947, Vidarbha and Western Maharashtra leaders entered into the Akola Pact envisaging a federal structure with representation based on the percentage of population. On 28.9.1953, the Nagpur Pact was entered into between the leaders of the Unified Maharashtra Movement and those of the leaders of the Vidarbha region, to remove the apprehensions of the latter that they would receive step-motherly treatment. It is evident that both these pacts were entered into with the intention of ensuring the successful integration of Vidarbha with the rest of Marashtra and to allay the fears of its leaders. Following this, the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 substituted a new Article 371, which reads as follows: A.371 Special provisions with respect to the States of :22: Maharashtra and Gujarat [The first clause was omitted] (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, the President may by order made with respect to the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat provide for any special responsibility of the Governor for – (a) the establishment of separate development boards for Vidarbha, Marathwada and the rest of Maharashtra, as the case may be, Saurashtra, Kutch and the rest of Gujarat, with the provision that a report on the working of each of these boards will be placed each year before the State Legislative Assembly; (b) the equitable allocation of funds for developmental expenditure over the said areas, subject to the requirements of the State as a whole; and (c) an equitable arrangement providing adequate facilities for technical education and vocational training, and adequate opportunities for employment in services under the control of the State government, in respect of all the said areas, subject to the requirements of the State as a whole. :23: 18. On 26.7.1989, the Maharashtra legislature passed a unanimous resolution requesting the President to invoke powers under Article 371 for the establishment of separate development boards. On 9.3.1994, the President passed the State of Maharashtra (Special Responsibility of Governor of Vidarbha, Marathwada and Rest of Maharashtra) Order. 19. On 30.4.1994, the Governor of Maharashtra passed the Development Boards for Vidarbha, Marathwada and Rest of Maharashtra) Order (hereinafter referred to as the Order), which was given effect on 1.05.1994. The intention behind the Order included ascertaining relative levels of development, assessing the impact of developmental effort on the removal of backlog, suggesting levels of developmental expenditure including the annual plan and the preparation of an annual report. 20. The Governor constituted the Dandekar Committee for Regional Imbalance on 30.04.1984 to address generally the problem of regional disparity in the development and to undertake an objective study of the problem of backlog. The calculation of Backlog by the Dandekar Committee as on 30.6.1982 is as follows : total sectoral backlog for Vidarbha was 39.12%, for Marathwada, 28.56% and for the Rest of Maharashtra, 37.32%. The irrigation backlog was 38%, 22.85% and 39.10% for Vidarbha, Marathwada and the Rest of Maharashtra respectively. The petitioners in PIL No.74 of 2003 submit :24: that its report was not accepted by the Government of Maharashtra. However, certain allocations were made for the purpose of correcting the imbalance by removing the backlog. 21. In 1995, the Indicator and Backlog Committee was formed, which submitted its report on 11.07.1997. The functions of the Indicator and Backlog Committee included deciding indicators for assessing the relative levels of backlog in different sectors and the calculation of backlog. The Irrigation backlog as per the Indicator and Backlog Committee was 55.04%, 32.37% and 12.59% respectively for Vidarbha, Marathwada and the rest of Maharashtra. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.5872 of 2003 allege that the report was accepted but no action was taken. 22. The Governor recommended that the views of the State Departments in the sectors relating to Irrigation, Higher and Technical Education, Land Development, Soil and Water Conservation should be referred to the said committee for calculating physical and financial loss. The reconstituted committee submitted its report on 27.9.2000, finding a total sectoral backlog of Rs. 14, 006.77 crores. 23. Under Clause 7 and Clause 8 of the Order, the Governor issued directives on 15.12.2001 and 12.3.2003. The directive of 15.12.2001 provided for the allocation of Rs. 2476 crores for the removal of backlog, while that of 12.03.2003 directed that Rs. 2751 crores be allocated in the Annual Plan for the year 2003-2004. :25: Submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in W.P 2751 of 2006: a) Challenges made: The Governor (respondent no.4) has no constitutional power under Article 371 of the Constitution of India to slash down the proposed outlays from the Appropriation Bill, which is passed by the State Legislature. Submissions Made: i) The petitioners drew the attention of the court towards the constitutional provisions, being Article 199,200,202,