GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Mr. Lawrence Fernandes is a Social Worker. Ex-Mayor of the erstwhile Bangalore City Corporation (now Bangalore Mahanagara Palike) and a Tax Payer. He has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation questioning the competency of the Government of Karnataka in according sanction and release of certain amount under the impugned orders at Annexure-A and B from the budgetary allocation of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') to the students of 4th respondent University College of Law and the 5th respondent National Law School University of India who have represented India at the Phillip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 1998 held at Washington D. C. between 29th March and 5th April 1998 and Model UN Summit held in New York, USA, from 8th to 12th July 1998. The principal ground on which the impugned orders are attacked is that the State Government has no power or authority to sanction or release the funds of the Authority and that the action and sanctioning of the funds is not for rendering "legal service" as provided under the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). ( 2 ) ON behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 objections have been filed. After referring to the facts and circumstances under which the impugned orders have been passed, reliance is placed on S. 7 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the 'principal Act') which describes the duties and functions of the State Authority, Section 4 (k) and S. 16 (1) of the Act. Justifying the impugned action of the State Government, respondents 2 and 3 have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 3 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of 4th respondent it is stated that cheque for the amount sanctioned had been obtained and issued to the students who represented India and hence the writ petition has to be dismissed. In other words, the writ petition is sought to be dismissed on the ground that it has become infructuous. ( 4 ) IN the counter statement filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, while denying that this writ petition in filed in public interest, the amount spent for is sought to be justified on the ground that it is for legal education. ( 4 ) IN the counter statement filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, while denying that this writ petition in filed in public interest, the amount spent for is sought to be justified on the ground that it is for legal education. The contention of the petitioner that the State Government has no power to sanction and release the amount of the Authority or it has exceeded its jurisdiction in the matter, are not admitted. The 5th respondent also prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the contentions urged on behalf the petitioner and the stand taken by the respondents, two questions emerge for our consideration and they are :- (1) Whether the sanction and release of the amounts by the State Government were for the purpose of rendering "legal service" under the Act? (2) Whether the State Government has got power to sanction and release the aforesaid amounts out of the budgetary allocation of the Authority? ( 6 ) WE shall take up the first point for consideration now. The preamble of the Act clearly states that the purpose of the Act is to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities etc. As per S. 16 (1) of the Act, all sums of money paid, granted, received and allocated shall be credited to the State Legal Aid Fund. The funds of the Authority shall be utilised only for the purposes specified in sub-section (2) of S. 16 of the Act which are extracted below :- (2) A State Legal Aid Fund shall be applied for meeting - (a) the cost of functions referred to in Section 7; (b) the cost of legal services provided by the High Court Legal Services Committee; (c) any other expenses which are required to be met by the State Authority". Clause (a) extracted above stipulates that the funds of the Authority shall be utilised for the functions referred to in S. 7 of the Act, which is extracted below :-"7 (1) It shall be the duty of the State Authority to give effect to the policy and directions of the Central Authority. Clause (a) extracted above stipulates that the funds of the Authority shall be utilised for the functions referred to in S. 7 of the Act, which is extracted below :-"7 (1) It shall be the duty of the State Authority to give effect to the policy and directions of the Central Authority. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the functions referred to in sub-section (1) the State Authority shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely - (a) give legal service to persons who satisfy the criteria laid down under this Act; (b) conduct Lok Adalats, including Lok Adalats for High Court cases; (c) undertake preventive and strategic legal aid programmes; and (d) perform such other functions as the State Authority may, in consultation with the Central Authority fixed by Regulations". ( 7 ) FROM a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that the funds of the Authority shall be utilised only for the purposes specified above. Once the budgetary allocation is made by the Government to the Authority, it becomes the fund of the Authority. The amount sanctioned and released by the State Government for the students of respondents 4 and 5 was towards the expenses to participate in the two events, namely, International Law Moot Court Competition and Model UN Summit held in U. S. A. Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act defines "legal Service" as under :-"legal Service" includes the rendering of any service in the conduct of any case or other legal proceedings before any Court or other Authority or Tribunal and the giving of advice on any legal matter". In the light of the above definition, the sanction and release of the amounts for those events cannot be termed as for rendering "legal service" or for the purposes stipulated in S. 16 (2) or S. 7 of the Act. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is held in the negative. ( 8 ) AS regards the second point is concerned, it has to be straightaway held that the State Government had no power either to sanction or release the funds out of the budgetary allocation of the authority. Once the amount is allocated in the budget to the authority, it becomes the funds of the authority and the Government has no power over it. Consequently, the impugned orders are ab initio void and the same are liable to be quashed. Once the amount is allocated in the budget to the authority, it becomes the funds of the authority and the Government has no power over it. Consequently, the impugned orders are ab initio void and the same are liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) IN paragraph 2 of the counter filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 it is stated "the State Government felt that participation of the Karnataka Students at the Model U. N. Summit and Youth Leadership Conference in U. S. A. was considered as an honour and it was decided by the State Government to provide some financial assistance from the budgetary provisions provided to the Karnataka State impugned orders came to be passed accordingly". It is no doubt true that the participation of Karnataka students in those two international events is an honour. In that view of matter the Government considered it fit to provide financial assistance to such students, the Government should have sanctioned and released its own funds. Government should not have laid its hand to the budgetary allocation of the Authority for that purpose. The sanction and release of the amounts is contrary to the objects of the Act and diversification of the funds of the Authority to other purposes. Such a thing is not permissible and respondents 2 and 3 cannot defend the impugned action on that ground. ( 10 ) ONE of the contention taken is that since the amounts have been paid to the students through cheques, the writ petition has become infructuous. This contention has no merit. What is questioned in this PIL is the legality, validity and authority or power of the Government to sanction the amounts to the students out of budgetary allocation of the Authority. Since the same is held as without the authority of law, the impugned orders are ab initio void. The same is always void and cannot be legalised. Consequently, the writ petition has not become infructuous on the ground that amounts have been paid as such payments were without authority and jurisdiction. ( 11 ) MUCH reliance has been placed by respondents 2 and 3 on S. 7 (1) of the Act to contend that the functions of the Authority is also to give effect to the policy and directions of the Central Authority. ( 11 ) MUCH reliance has been placed by respondents 2 and 3 on S. 7 (1) of the Act to contend that the functions of the Authority is also to give effect to the policy and directions of the Central Authority. Section 4 (k) of the Act has been pressed into service to contend that encouraging programmes for clinical legal education etc. , is one of the key objections of Central Authority and the action taken by the Government pursuance to the said provisions is not illegal and arbitrary. Respondents 2 and 3 have failed to note that there is no provision in the Act for rendering financial assistance to the students to participate in International events. Section 4 (k) of the Act provides for development of programmes for clinical legal education etc. , in consultation with the Bar Council of India. The two International events in which the students of respondents 4 and 5 have participated are not the programmes conducted with the consultation of Bar Council of India for giving clinical legal education. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3 cannot take shelter by placing emphasis of S. 4 (k) of the Act. The said provision is not applicable to the impugned action. ( 12 ) IN the light of our conclusions, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to reimburse the amount within six weeks to the first respondent authority. Respondents 2 and 3 are at liberty to recover the amounts from respondents 4 and 5. --- *** --- .