IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 130 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 25, 2008. ________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Sawant ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. … Respondents. _______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral), By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of the following amongst other reliefs :- i) Declare the act of the respondents whereby they have cancelled all the 54 schemes which had been sanctioned and the amount had already been sent for disbursement without any reason as arbitrary and illegal; ii) Direct the respondents not to utilize an amount of Rs.32,55,000/- in any other scheme and if the same is utilized some where else then the respondents may be directed to provide this amount so that it can be utilized for the schemes for which the same had been sanctioned and quash the letter dated 15.1.2008 - 2 - Annexure P3 whereby schemes have been ordered to be cancelled; iii) Direct the respondents to produce before this Hon’ble Court the relevant record pertaining to the case; iv) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in the interest of justice. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that in the months of September and October, 2007, as many as 54 schemes were sanctioned in the Jubbal and Kotkhai area by the respondent No.2 which is apparent from the documents dated 29.9.2007, 9.10.2007 & 10.10.2007 attached with the petition. All the schemes were small schemes for making pucca play grounds, retaining walls etc. A total amount of Rs. 32,55,000/- was spent on these schemes. On 10.10.2007, elections to the H.P. State Legislative Assembly were declared by the Election Commission of India. Therefore, the Model Code of Conduct came into force and the actual work could not be started and the execution of the schemes could not take place. In fact, even the money to be spent on these schemes was not sent to the respondent No.3 who was the concerned Block Development Officer (BDO). After the declaration of the results, when the Model Code of Conduct - 3 - ceased to be in operation, on 29.12.2007, respondent 2- Deputy Commissioner, Shimla sent a cheque No.930961 to the respondent No.3, Block Development Officer, Jubbal & Kotkhai for a sum of Rs.32,55,000/- for execution of the 54 schemes. Suddenly, without any new development, on 15.1.2008, respondent 2 - Deputy Commissioner, Shimla issued another letter that all the 54 schemes sanctioned may be treated as cancelled. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 15.1.2008. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri Ajay Mohan Goel learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no cause has been shown by the respondents for canceling the schemes. On behalf of the State, it is urged that the State is competent to cancel or sanction any scheme in the larger public interest. There can be no doubt that the respondent-State is competent and entitled to sanction and cancel any scheme. However, any action of the State can be scrutinized by this Court and if such action is found to be arbitrary then this Court can interfere in exercise of its extra- ordinary writ jurisdiction. The State in its reply has not taken the plea that the schemes were arbitrarily sanctioned or that the schemes have been sanctioned for any other - 4 - extraneous reasons. It is expected that all Government functionaries act in the larger public interest and should follow the rule of law. In the reply filed by the State, the only ground taken for justifying the cancellation is that in the letter sanctioning the schemes, it was clearly mentioned that if the works are not started within a period of three months then the schemes shall be deemed to be cancelled. The relevant portion of the reply reads as follows:- “7. That the contents of this para admitted to the extent that 54 schemes as sanctioned vide Annexure P-1 and P-2 by the respondent No.2 were cancelled on 15.1.2008 as Annexure P3. It is submitted that large number of schemes were pending and were not started in Block Development Jubbal. Despite repeated directions in the meetings conducted from time to time for the purpose, work on these schemes could not be started. As per terms and conditions No.4 of the sanctioned letter dated 10.10.2007 Annexure P-1, Annexure P-3, it is within the power of respondent No.2. The sanction of schemes is granted subject to terms and conditions. Condition No.4 of sanction clearly states that if the work is not started within three months from the date of sanction then the sanction of the not started work/schemes will be deemed cancelled. In the present case sanction is dated 10.10.2007 but the work in all these schemes was not started till cancellation i.e. 15.01.2008. Three months have already elapsed on 10.1.2008; therefore, it was decided to cancel newly sanctioned schemes involved in Annexure P-1 and P-2 in - 5 - the first instance and to discuss with BDO Jubbal about the feasibility of starting of these schemes for proper, timely and the best utilization of public money. It was also decided that schemes which the BDO can start within one month can then be re-sanctioned and other can be modified for the same Block. Remaining averments of this para are formal in nature and needs no reply.” This reply itself shows total non-application of mind on behalf of the respondent No.2. As is apparent from the documents annexed to the petition though the schemes were sanctioned in September and October, 2007, the money to be spent on the schemes was only sent on 29.12.2007. It is apparent that due to the declaration issued by the Election Commission of India that elections to the H.P. State Legislative Assembly would take place, the Model Code of Conduct came into force and, therefore, the money was not sent for the execution of the schemes. This money was sent only on 29.12.2007 after the declaration of the results and after the Model Code of Conduct ceased to be in operation. The period of three months must necessarily be reckoned from 29.12.2007. The cancellation of the schemes on 15.1.2008 smacks of mala fides. It is apparent that the reason for cancellation was not what has been stated before this Court. The - 6 - schemes could only be started after the money was received. The period of three months has to be reckoned from the date when funds become available. The respondents have failed to give any other reason for cancellation of the schemes. The reason given by them is patently false and incorrect. The reason given is not only incorrect but it is arbitrary and capricious. Such arbitrary action is bound to be struck down. We consequently, allow the writ petition and quash the letter No. SML.RL-23)DS)2007-08-1720 dated 15th January, 2008 (Annexure P-3) canceling the 54 schemes. The respondents are directed to remit the amount of Rs.32,55,000/- to the concerned officials/officers within 15 days and permit the schemes to be carried out. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. April 25, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s. ( Rajiv Sharma ), J