E-Paper
HC stays disbursal of balance development funds in Mumbai for 2022-23
In his plea, Waikar alleged that the ruling government had not made equitable disbursal of the Maharashtra Local Development (MLD) funds among the MLAs.
Mumbai: The Bombay high court has restrained the state government from disbursing any remaining amount of development funds in Mumbai for the financial year 2022-23 and also sought a detailed disbursal record from February 17 when the petition was filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Ravindra Waikar.
In his plea, Waikar alleged that the ruling government had not made equitable disbursal of the Maharashtra Local Development (MLD) funds among the MLAs.
The division bench of justice G S Kulkarni and justice R N Laddha while hearing Jogeshwari (East) MLA Waikar’s petition seeking equitable allocation of the MLD funds, without any discrimination, based on political parties the members represent was informed by advocates Satish and Siddhasen Borulkar that there were discrepancies in the disbursal amounts.
The advocates drew the attention of the bench that Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) had allotted ₹11,420.44 lakh for ‘Slum Dwellers Re-allocation and Rehabilitation Plan of 2022-23’, ₹26,687.2 lakh for ‘Development of Slums in Other than Backward Class, and ₹7,000 lakh for ‘Development of Basic Infrastructure’ for the areas in Mumbai suburban district.
The bench was informed that the allocation, however, showed that many constituencies represented by ruling parties including BJP, Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena, and Republic Party of India had got the lion’s share of the disbursals. Waikar claimed that the allocation of funds was discriminatory, arbitrary, irrational, unfair and contrary to the public interest and was arbitrarily making classification amongst the members equally situated.
Waikar sought directions to the state government and MHADA to allocate funds in equal proportion for 2022-23, without discriminating between MLAs and MLCs from ruling parties and Opposition, and to quash and set aside the present allocations.
On Thursday, when the petition was heard, Borulkar informed the bench that though the HC had asked MHADA and the state government to respond to the petition by March 10, no reply was filed. On the contrary, after the petition was filed on February 17, large amounts were disbursed.
After additional government pleader Milind More sought time to file the reply, the bench expressed its displeasure on the same. The bench noted that the respondent state needed to answer the contentions raised by the petitioner and said, “We also direct the state government to place on record in such an affidavit, as to how much amounts have been disbursed from February 17 till date, under the heads in question, and their allocation per elected representatives, of the different assembly constituencies.”
The court further restrained the state from disbursing any remaining amount that is yet to be disbursed till further orders.
The bench directed the state government to file its affidavit in reply to the plea by April 3 and posted the hearing to April 5.
