HC dismisses challenge to guardian minister’s power to allocate civic funds

The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition by Varsha Gaikwad and two others challenging the government's decision to authorise guardian ministers to allocate civic funds. The court called the petition "thoroughly misconceived" and "politically motivated". Gaikwad argued that funds were allocated arbitrarily and sought the annulment of the resolution passed on 16 February 2023. The court stated that some administrative oversight is acceptable and dismissed the petitioners' claim that approvals would favour the BJP. The court concluded that the petition was politically motivated and rejected it.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday rejected a petition filed by city Congress chief and Dharavi MLA Varsha Gaikwad and two others, challenging the state government’s decision to authorise guardian ministers, Mangal Prabhat Lodha and Deepak Kesarkar to allocate civic funds for development projects in the city.

HT Image

A bench comprising justice Gautam Patel and justice Kamal Khata dismissed the petition filed by Gaikwad and former corporators Ashraf Azmi and Meher Mohasin Haider, as “thoroughly misconceived” and “politically motivated.”

The petitioners contested the BMC’s move to entrust the guardian ministers with the power to recommend fund allocations for development works in the city and suburbs, respectively.

After the completion of the corporators’ five-year term in March 2022, BMC commissioner Iqbal Singh Chahal was appointed as the administrator, followed by the delegation of powers to the guardian ministers for recommending approval of development fund allocations.

Gaikwad argued that municipal funds were allocated arbitrarily with the approval of guardian ministers and sought the annulment of the resolution passed on February 16, 2023, delegating powers to them.

The court considered the petition’s objective to ensure funds were allocated according to the petitioners’ wishes as inconceivable. It emphasised that guardian ministers have a duty of oversight, and since only the High Court and State government can supersede the Municipal Commissioner, some administrative oversight is acceptable.

The court stated, “The kind of arbitrariness petitioners claim suggests that the petitioners will dictate how the Municipal Commissioner, standing committee, and Government will allocate funds.” It dismissed the petitioners’ claim that Lodha’s approvals would always favour his political party, BJP, stating that such allegations required strong proof, which was lacking in the present petition.

The court concluded that the entire petition was politically motivated, citing references to BJP, Shiv Sena, and Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. It asserted that the grounds raised by the petitioner were a refuge for a losing litigant and, accordingly, rejected the petition.