Dismissed

Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary

Bombay HC18 Mar 2026PIL/59/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL filed by a Member of Legislative Assembly seeking mandatory directions to extend drought-related input subsidies to additional talukas, villages, and revenue circles beyond the 151 areas officially assessed as drought-affected by the State Government under prescribed management manuals.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:12343-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 59 OF 2020

¶4

Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary

¶7

Mr. S. R. Sapkal h/f Mr. A. S. Sakhare and Mr. A. B. Chormal, Advocate for petitioner

¶8

Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for respondent-State

¶9

CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 18^th March, 2026

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

1. Present petition was filed for following reliefs :-

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Heard learned Advocate for petitioner.

¶16

It appears that the petitioner, who is the member of

¶17

1 of 4

¶18

914-PIL-59-2020.odt

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

914-PIL-59-2020.odt

¶23

wrong and when this can be perceived at the ground level then the similar concession should be given to the other talukas/villages also.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

3 of 4

¶27

914-PIL-59-2020.odt

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Hence, Public Interest Litigation stands dismissed.

¶31

(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.)

¶32

(Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

¶33

B. S. Joshi

¶34

4 of 4

¶35

914-PIL-59-2020.odt

Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Chaman Fulzele and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Ashish Chaman Fulzele and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Adv Satish Bhimrao Nalawade and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Girdharlal S/O. Laxmandas Harwani vs the State of Maharashtra, Collector, Akola and Others

Viki Ashok Mane vs State of Maharashtra through Its Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Labour and Ors.

Narendra Shivprasad Maliwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dipika Dinesh Mondkar vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Ummed Singh Nahata vs Union of India (Ministry of Environment and Forest)