RATNAKAR MANIKRAO GUTTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2026:BHC-AUG:12343-DB




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 59 OF 2020

                                     Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte
                                            VERSUS
                        The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary

           Mr. S. R. Sapkal h/f Mr. A. S. Sakhare and Mr. A. B. Chormal, Advocate
           for petitioner
           Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for respondent-State

                                              CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi &
                                                      Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.
                                              DATE       : 18th March, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.            Present petition was filed for following reliefs :-

                     B.     To direct the respondent to disburse input subsidy
                     to farmers of 151 drought affected talukas of amount of
                     Rupees Two Thousand Nine Hundred Nine Crores, Fifty
                     One lacs and Nine Thousand only in view of
                     Government Resolution dated 25.1.2019 and extend
                     this input subsidy grant to other drought affected
                     villages also by issuing appropriate writ, and order or
                     direction in the nature of writ or as the case may be.

                     C.    To direct the respondent to extend the
                     concessions given to 4518 villages, 931 villages and
                     268 revenue circles facing drought like situation to
                     farmers in 151 drought affected Talukas by issuing
                     appropriate writ, and order of direction in the nature of
                     writ or as the case may be.


           2.            Heard learned Advocate for petitioner.



           3.            It appears that the petitioner, who is the member of



           914-PIL-59-2020.odt                                                   1 of 4
Legislative Assembly from Gangakhed constituency, has raised the point

of grant of subsidy to the farmers of 151 drought affected talukas. In

view of Government Resolution dated 25.01.2019, it is also prayed that

the subsidy should be granted to other drought affected villages also and

in specific, it is prayed for direction to the respondent to extend

concession given to 4518 villages, 938 villages and 268 revenue circles

facing drought like situation to farmers in 151 drought affected talukas.



4.          Learned Advocate for the petitioner tries to submit that from

the Government Resolution, it can be considered that the respondent

State adopted peak and choose move for giving concessions by

communication dated 31.08.2020. The petitioner had raised the point

with the then Hon’ble Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and Minister

of Revenue. Now, the respondent No. 1 has filed the affidavit of Mr.

Deepak Muglikar, the then District Collector, Parbhani wherein it is stated

that as per the procedure prescribed under the Manual for Drought

Management, 2016, the State Government had undertaken the Drought

Assessment during the Kharif, 2018 season after following the said

prescribed procedure. It was revealed that there was drought in 151

talukas of the State, out of which there was severe drought in 112

talukas and in 39 talukas the condition of the drought was moderate in

nature. Hence, the government resolution covers only 151 talukas.

According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the criteria thus is


914-PIL-59-2020.odt                                                   2 of 4
wrong and when this can be perceived at the ground level then the

similar concession should be given to the other talukas/villages also.



5.          Learned AGP supports the affidavit-in-reply filed by the then

District Collector and submits that when the procedure has been

prescribed under the legislature and it has been followed, it should not

be objected too. She also points out that the petitioner under the

member of legislative assembly ought to have raised the point in the

house. The Government employees are bound to follow the government

resolution and the procedure that has been laid down.



6.          Here, the first and the foremost fact that is required to be

considered is that the petitioner cannot come before this Court as a

ordinary person when he himself is the member of legislative assembly.

The best opportunity for him to raise the said point regarding the alleged

discrimination of declaring drought in certain talukas only was in the

assembly. Upon query, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits

that he has no instructions in that respect, but the pleadings in the

petition do not suggest that such question was raised in the assembly.

Perusal of the Government Resolution would also make it clear that the

Government      had   followed   the   procedure   Manual    for   Drought

Management, 2016. It is the enactment of the State Government and the

petitioner is not raising any objection in respect of any of the provisions



914-PIL-59-2020.odt                                                      3 of 4
of the said manual nor it has been demonstrated that the figure that has

been arrived at i.e., 151 talukas is wrongly assessed even after taking

into consideration the provisions of the manual. In other words, unless it

is demonstrated that the assessment as per the procedure adopted as

per manual is wrong. We cannot say that the Government Resolution has

any defect. Now, it is to be noted that perhaps the petitioner has no

objection in respect of the procure adopted in respect of 151 talukas, he

is of the opinion that it should be made applicable to 4518 villages, 931

villages and 268 revenue circles. Now, in order to support the said

statement,     what   research   he   had    conducted   of   each   of   those

talukas/villages/circle has not been placed. The representation by him to

the then Hon’ble Chief Minister and others is vague as it is.



7.            Whether to declare a village as drought affected or a taluka

as drought affected is guided by the principles and it depends upon the

policy of the Government which cannot be the subject matter under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, we are of the

opinion that no case is made out for interference.



8.            Hence, Public Interest Litigation stands dismissed.




(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.)                   (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

B. S. Joshi




914-PIL-59-2020.odt                                                       4 of 4