V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'bmp') issued Notification at Annexure-A dated 12-6-2000 inviting tenders for the supply of sports equipments. The terms and conditions of the tender are specified in Annexure-A1. The petitioners, which are co-operative societies, submitted their tenders within the specified time. Respondents 3 and 4 submitted their tenders after deadline fixed at 3-oo p. m. on 30-6-2000. The petitioners filed their objections to the tenders of respondents 3 to 4 on the ground that their tenders are belated. It is alleged that in order to facilitate them, another notification at Annexure-F was issued. The same was challenged in W. P. No. 37871/2000. This Court quashed the notification at Annexure-F and directed the authorities to consider all the applications as per the tender notification. Thereafter, certain representations had been filed by the petitioners requesting to consider all the applications. It is alleged that without considering the tenders and representations of the petitioners, the Standing Committee of BMP decided to entrust the supply of sports materials to respondents 3 and 4 vide resolution at Annexure-M dated 7-5-2001. The said resolution was approved by the BMP by its resolution at Annexure-N dated 28-5-2001. The petitioners are seeking to quash the impugned resolutions at Annexures-M and N. A direction is also sought to the BMP to consider all the applications afresh in accordance with the Notifications at Annexures-A and A-1. ( 2 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent BMP it is contended that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed for delay and laches. It is stated that all the tender applications have been considered and the tenders of respondents 3 and 4 have been accepted. Pursuant to the award of tender, substantial supply of material had been made and even bills also have been submitted by respondents 3 and 4. It is alleged that the petitioners never supplied the sample articles. Justifying the impugned action, the first respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. ( 3 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 it is stated that pursuant to award of contract, agreement had been entered into and sports materials had been supplied. The writ petitions filed at this belated stage are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. ( 3 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 it is stated that pursuant to award of contract, agreement had been entered into and sports materials had been supplied. The writ petitions filed at this belated stage are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is alleged that the 4th respondent is at the back of these writ petitions as it could not get order in respect of some of the items. It is stated that materials to the tune of Rs. 45 lakhs had already been supplied and bills for about Rs. 35 lakhs had been submitted and for the remaining amount the bills are yet to be submitted. It is asserted that 3rd respondent has borrowed heavy amounts from financial institutions paying interest. It is also stated that Sales Tax of Rs. 1,47,000/- has been paid on the materials already supplied. The 3rd respondent also prayed for the dismissal of the writ petitions. ( 4 ) IN the additional objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 after furnishing the details of the beneficiaries, it is stated that the bills submitted by the 3rd respondent have not at all been cleared due to the pendency of these writ petitions. ( 5 ) IN the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, a contention is taken that the resolutions of BMP are contrary to Rule 6-A (a) (ii) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules) and hence the impugned resolutions at Annexures-M and N are liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) IT is stated that the contract amount is exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs and public interest is involved in this case. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the State Government in place of the 5th respondent Sports Authority of India as it has nothing to do with the issues involved in these writ petitions. ( 7 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. ( 8 ) BEFORE going into the merits of the case, the preliminary objection raised regarding maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches be considered. ( 9 ) THE impugned resolution at Annexure-M is dated 7-5-2001 and the same has been approved vide Annexure-N dated 28-5-2001. Work Order as per Annexure-R2 was issued on 2-6-2001. ( 8 ) BEFORE going into the merits of the case, the preliminary objection raised regarding maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches be considered. ( 9 ) THE impugned resolution at Annexure-M is dated 7-5-2001 and the same has been approved vide Annexure-N dated 28-5-2001. Work Order as per Annexure-R2 was issued on 2-6-2001. These writ petitions were filed on 16-7-2001. It is thus clear that within one and half months the petitioners have approached this Court. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any delay or laches on the part of the petitioners. Hence, the contention raised regarding delay and laches is rejected. ( 10 ) IN order to consider the merits of the case, it is necessary to deal with the contention raised that the impugned resolutions and award of contract in favour of 3rd respondent is contrary to the statutory provisions. It is stated that the contract amount involved in the instant case is Rs. 68,60 lakhs. Hence, the award of contract is contrary to Rule 6-A read with Section 182 (1) (c) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The said provisions are extracted hereunder :-"182. General Provisions Relating to Contracts :- (1) The Corporation may enter into any contract and perform such contracts as it may consider necessary or expedient for carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. (2) Subject to the Rules made in this behalf, the following provisions shall apply with respect to the making of contract for any of the purposes of this Act, namely :- (a) and (b) xx xx xx (c) any contract involving any expenditure exceeding such limits (as may be specified in the rules) shall be made by the Commissioner unless the requirement regarding the procedure to be followed has been followed, and unless the authority which is competent to accord sanction has accorded such sanction and where the sanction to be accorded is by the Government unless such sanction has been accorded by the Government. "6-A. Restriction on the power to make contracts (1) (a) The restriction on the power of the several authorities of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore to make contracts shall be as follows, namely :- (i) xx xx xx (ii) The Standing Committee shall not authorise making of contract involving an expenditure exceeding Rupees 15 lakhs unless sanction of the Corporation thereto is obtained. (iii) The Corporation shall not authorise making of contract involving an expenditure exceeding Rupees 20 lakhs unless it has obtained sanction of the Government. From the above it is clear that Section 182 (2) (c) of the Act impose restriction on the Commissioner not to make any contracts unless sanction is accorded by the Government wherever necessary. Item (ii) of Rule 6-A (1) (a) imposes restriction for awarding contracts exceeding Rs. 15 by the Standing Committee without obtaining the sanction of the Corporation and Item (iii) impose restriction on the Corporation awarding contracts exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs without obtaining the sanction of the Government. ( 11 ) IT is an admitted fact that the contract amount involved in the instant case is Rs. 68. 60 lakhs. The impugned resolution at Annexure-M has been passed anticipating the approval of the BMP. Likewise, the impugned resolution at Annexure-N approving Annexure-M was passed anticipating the approval of the Government. Item (iii) of Rule 6-A (1) (a) of the Rules extracted above imposes a clear bar on entering into contract unless sanction of the Government is obtained. In other words, sanction of the Government is a pre-condition to award contract exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs. In the instant case, the contract awarded in favour of 3rd respondent was not by obtaining prior sanction. On the contrary, it was awarded anticipating the sanction of the Government. Hence, the impugned resolutions at Annexures-M and N and the consequent award of contract in favour of respondents 3 and 4 are contrary to Rule 6-A (1) (a) of the Rules read with Section 182 (1) (c) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The contract awarded is exceeding the limitations and jurisdictions imposed under the Act and the Rules. Hence, the same is bad in law and liable to be struck down. ( 12 ) THE contract was awarded for the supply of sports materials/equipments. The contract awarded is exceeding the limitations and jurisdictions imposed under the Act and the Rules. Hence, the same is bad in law and liable to be struck down. ( 12 ) THE contract was awarded for the supply of sports materials/equipments. Therefore, it has to be tested as to whether the same was authorised or permitted under the Act and the Rules. Chapter XI deals with the finance of the BMP. Section 149 specifies BMP Fund. It stipulates that the funds shall be held, applied and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the Regulations made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force. Section 151 states that the Financial Rules shall be as prescribed. So far such Financial Rules have not at all been framed. So, any expenditure of funds of BMP shall be made within the frame-work of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 167 of the Act provides for preparation of budget estimates. None of the provisions of the Act or the Rules provide for spending the money on sports materials. Moreover, there is no provision for sponsoring the beneficiaries for the supply of sports materials and that is not the intent and object of the Act and the Rules. The sponsorship made and the supply of sports materials are unauthorised. Those acts are beyond the scope of the statutory provisions. ( 13 ) IT is significant to note that no scheme or guidelines is prescribed to select the beneficiaries entitled to the sports materials. The impugned resolutions at Annexures-M and N reveals that the beneficiaries shall be sponsored by the Councillors, nominated members, Members of Legislative Assembly and the Municipal Employees Associations. Under what authority such sponsorship can be done, is not made known. Neither that Act nor the Rules provide for such sponsorship. Hence, it has to be held that the so-called sponsorship is without the authority of law. ( 14 ) THE sponsorship is also discriminatory as the authorities and Associations who are given authorisation (though not permitted) to make sponsorship will act arbitrarily and their actions would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They will sponsor the individuals or associations of their choice who work for them and who co-operate with them. ( 14 ) THE sponsorship is also discriminatory as the authorities and Associations who are given authorisation (though not permitted) to make sponsorship will act arbitrarily and their actions would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They will sponsor the individuals or associations of their choice who work for them and who co-operate with them. Quite naturally the sponsorship will be for the party workers or activists of the concerned elected representatives, be they Councillors of M. L. As. It is obvious that the sponsorship will not be for the genuine and needy persons or associations. Viewed from this angle, the expenditure incurred by the BMP for such purposes which are not authorised in law is nothing but a wastage of tax payers money. ( 15 ) THE sponsorship made and the supply of sports materials are made on assumptions and conjuctures. Instead of spending such huge amounts on sport materials, the BMP should have utilised the amount for better purposes like providing drinking water, public taps, sanitation, school buildings, books, schoes, socks, uniforms etc. , to primary school children, construction of urinals and lavatories in public places and such other civil amenities. Nothing can be acheived by earmarking and spending such huge amounts of tax payers on sport materials in the guise of encouraging sports. Encouragement of sports and providing free materials to the sportsman is not the need of the hour. When the public are facing undue hardship on account of accute shortage of water and for want of other basic civic amenities, the BMP should desist itself from making budgetory allocations for this kind of unnecessary wastage of money on unguided and unauthorised schemes. In this view of the matter also, the impugned resolutions and the award of contract in favour of respondents 3 and 4 are not only without the authority of law but wholly unnecessary and unwanted. This is nothing but paving way for wastage of public money. In these hard days of crisis the BMP shall not venture upon such budgetory allocations. ( 16 ) YET another shocking factor is the contractor has been allowed to supply the sports materials directly to the beneficiaries. It is not known whether the materials have been really supplied or not. The BMP has not maintained any Stock Register in this regard. There is no transperancy in the transaction. ( 16 ) YET another shocking factor is the contractor has been allowed to supply the sports materials directly to the beneficiaries. It is not known whether the materials have been really supplied or not. The BMP has not maintained any Stock Register in this regard. There is no transperancy in the transaction. Possibility of the beneficiaries receiving cash consideration instead of sports materials from the contractor cannot be ruled-out. In the affidavit filed by the proprietor of 3rd respondent on 13-8-2001 it is stated as under :-"the relevant clause in the agreement- 'the party of the second part shall deliver the sport materials of 88 items to the mentioned clubs, associations, beneficiaries of among 100 wards and other organisation, schools, colleges of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, within 30 days on the receipt of their requisition letter". All the supply orders are dated. . . . . . . These supply orders are addressed to MLAs, nominated Councillors and Councillors of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and after receipt of these supply orders by them, they would forward it to respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 receives them from. . . . . . . As and when the supply orders were received, respondent No. 3 was bound to make supplies and he has made supplies as directed in the supply orders. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx the materials have been received by the beneficiaries and have been utilised" from a bare reading of the above it is clear that the BMP will be out of picture after awarding the contract. Except allocation of amount in the budget and awarding contract, BMP has nothing to do in the matter. Whether the materials have been supplied by the contractor or not and whether the same have been given to the beneficiaries or not, are not within the knowledge of BMP though the amount for the materials are being funded by it. In the last sentence extracted above, the 3rd respondent states that the materials have been utilised by the beneficiaries. On what basis such a statement is made is a utter dismay as 3rd respondent cannot say about the utilisation of the materials by such large beneficiaries. In the last sentence extracted above, the 3rd respondent states that the materials have been utilised by the beneficiaries. On what basis such a statement is made is a utter dismay as 3rd respondent cannot say about the utilisation of the materials by such large beneficiaries. ( 17 ) THOUGH in the additional statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 of the list of the beneficiaries are furnished, the details of the materials supplied to each of them is not furnished. This is obvious because the BMP itself does not know the quantity of materials supplied to each of them as the entire power is given to the sponsoring Councillors, M. L. As. etc. , It is asserted that the modus operandi of the entire scheme is to see that the sports articles shall reach the beneficiaries directly. Such a modus operandi is highly deplorable. This kind of so-called modus operandi give room for the Councillors and M. L. As. to deprive the benefit to the beneficiaries with the nexus they have with the supplier. the beneficiaries and the officials of BMP. The Councillors and M. L. As. will choose the beneficiaries according to their whims and fancies in the absence of clear and specific guidelines. ( 18 ) FROM the list of beneficiaries mentioned in the additional counter, it is seen almost all the beneficiaries are Associations, Clubs, Samithis and such other bodies, registered or un-registered. They have been constituted and formed with certain objects. They have got their own members, donors etc. , There is no necessity or statutory obligation on the part of the BMP to supply sports materials to them by making budgetory provisions out of tax payers revenue. The revenue collection of BMP by way of taxes, fees, cesses, betterment/development charges, etc. , have to be spent for public amenities to benefit the larger section of the society and the funds shall not be utilised in this manner for the benefit of a few. The BMP has completely ignored this aspect of the matter while making budgetory allocations. ( 19 ) THOUGH it is held that the impugned resolutions are bad in law and liable to be struck down and the supply of sport materials was not authorised, it is an admitted fact that the 3rd respondent has already supplied sports materials worth about Rs. ( 19 ) THOUGH it is held that the impugned resolutions are bad in law and liable to be struck down and the supply of sport materials was not authorised, it is an admitted fact that the 3rd respondent has already supplied sports materials worth about Rs. 45 lakhs and at the time of arguments it was submitted that the supply made was worth Rs. 47 lakhs in pursuant to the work orders issued to him by the BMP represented its officer and the bills are pending on account of the pendency of these writ petitions. The 3rd respondent has made the supplies pursuant to the contract awarded to him. The supply so made is not disputed by BMP. Therefore, the 3rd respondent shall not be allowed to suffer loss for the bona fide supplies made. He has already paid Rs. 1,47,000/- towards Sales Tax as per Annexure-R3 on the materials supplied. Under these circumstances, ends of justice require that the 3rd respondent is entitled to the amount on the supplies made as on today in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1623 (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India ). At the same time, the BMP shall stop placing any more orders for the supply hereinafter. ( 20 ) FOR the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are partly allowed subject to the above observations. The impugned resolutions at Annexures-M and N are quashed. However, quashing of the same shall not come in the way of 3rd respondent receiving the amounts for the supply of sports materials already made. ( 21 ) IT is directed that the BMP shall not award any contract without obtaining prior approval of the Govrernment as required under Section 182 of the Act and Rule 6-A of the Rules. Whenver such approval is sought either by BMP or any other Municipal Corporation the State Government shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders without any undue delay. Unless such prior approval is accorded by the Government, the BMP shall not issue any notification for awarding contracts. Petitions partly allowed. --- *** --- .