JUDGMENT 1. - This probono petition has been filed by Sanyam Lodha, a Social Activist, Advocate and Member of Legislative Assembly Rajasthan with the following reliefs: (i) to issue direction to the respondents to give full monetary relief as has been granted in the case of Ms. Khushboo of Rs. 5 lacs to other similarly situated persons; (ii) to declare the action of respondents in not giving same monetary relief to minor girls who are subjected to rape as illegal; (iii) to issue direction not to misuse the Chief Minister Relief Fund. 2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner, in the floor of Assembly asked question No. 514/Home that from January 1, 2004 uptill August, 2005 in how many matters of rape with minor girls the amounts was released from the Chief Minister Relief Fund? In another question some details were sought for the months of June, 2005 and July, 2005 pertaining to relief granted to minor girls, who were victims of rape? These questions were answered by the Government and following details were furnished: (i) Ms. Khushboo daughter of Mr. Ishtiyaq Ahmed whose matter No. 15529 was given Rupees Five Lacs vide Demand Draft No. 567545 dated June 25, 2005. (ii) Ms. Shravani daughter of late Mr. Ramdhan Gurjar whose matter No. 101317 was given Rs. 3,95,000/- vide Demand Draft No. 207068 dated August 11, 2004. 3. It appears that the petitioner is concerned and aggrieved by the discriminatory policy being adopted by the Government of Rajasthan in the matter of release of relief fund pertaining to similarly situated persons. According to petitioner the policy violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and stated that extraordinary powers under Article 226 cannot be invoked in the garb of Public Interest Litigation with regard to discretionary powers of Chief Minister pertaining to the relief given under the Rules of the Chief Minister Relief Fund. There was no discrimination in giving relief to the victim of rape of minor girls. Ms. Khushboo was granted a sum of Rs. 5 lacs which was deposited in fixed deposit till she became major looking to the heinous offence committed on a minor girl of only seven months. Ms. Shravani Bai was granted Rs. 3,95,000/-, since her father had been expired and she was discarded from the Society. Ms. Khushboo was granted a sum of Rs. 5 lacs which was deposited in fixed deposit till she became major looking to the heinous offence committed on a minor girl of only seven months. Ms. Shravani Bai was granted Rs. 3,95,000/-, since her father had been expired and she was discarded from the Society. The Chief Minister in these exceptional circumstances used her discretion in granting relief to the victim and the discretion was exercised in fair manner. Thus it cannot be said that Article 14 was violated. The Chief Minister being In-charge of Chief Minister Relief Funds is competent to grant relief to any victim of drought, flood and any accident, development of hospital, Medical Assistance, Child Welfare and development of Rajasthan. 5. Additional reply to the writ petition was also filed by respondents with the averments that "Rajasthan Chief Minister Famine and Flood Relief Fund" was governed by the Notification dated November 12, 1979. Rule 5 of the notifications empowers the Chief Minister to disburse and grant relief of whatever amount as per his/her discretion. Subsequently vide notification dated April 6, 1999 six different funds had been merged into one newly constituted fund by name of "Rajasthan Chief Minister Relief Fund". This fund is governed by Rules as set out in notification dated April 6, 1999. Rule 5 of the notification empowers the Chief Minister to sanction any amount of relief in any matter as per his/her discretion. It is further stated that since the petitioner had raised this particular issue in Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and a detailed reply was submitted on the floor of the Assembly, the petitioner cannot and should not permit to raise the similar issue in the garb of Public Interest Litigation. 6. We have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 7. A look at the notification dated April 6, 1999 demonstrates that Rules in regard to drought, flood and any accident, development of hospital, Medical Assistance, Child Welfare and development of Rajasthan enacted from time to time, were consolidated in "Rajasthan Chief Minister Relief Fund" Rules, 1999. Rule 5 of the notification, that is relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the instant matter, reads thus: " ;g dks"k eq[;ea=h egksn; ds v/khu gksxk rkfd os bl dks"k ls fdlh Hkh izdj.k esa fdlh Hkh lhek rd fofRr; lgk;rk Lohdkj dj ldsaxsA " (Emphasis Supplied) 8. Rule 5 of the notification, that is relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the instant matter, reads thus: " ;g dks"k eq[;ea=h egksn; ds v/khu gksxk rkfd os bl dks"k ls fdlh Hkh izdj.k esa fdlh Hkh lhek rd fofRr; lgk;rk Lohdkj dj ldsaxsA " (Emphasis Supplied) 8. Having considered the submissions and on scrutinising the documents placed for our perusal we notice that from January 5, 2004 till July 25, 2005 as many as 15 victims subjected. to rape and murder were provided monetary help by the Government of Rajasthan. Ms. Sultana, Ms. Chanda and Ms. Pooja, respectively belonged to Jaipur, Dausa and Sri Ganganagar, who were subjected to rape and murder, were granted only a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Ms. Khushboo and Ms. Shravani Bai were the victims of rape, who were granted Rs. Five lacs and Rs. 3,95,000/- respectively. In our opinion all the minor victims of rape are alike and they are required to be treated equally. On the basis of different circumstances of the case the victims of rape cannot be treated differently. In the eyes of Chief Minister all victims should be alike irrespective of the age of minor victim. Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code provides similar punishment for the offence of rape committed with a girl aged 5 months or under 12 years. When no distinction is made in the Indian Penal Code between the victims of rape then why they are being discriminating in granting the monetary relief. 9. During these days when debate about `Laxman-Rekha' Judiciary, Legislative and Executive is on, strangely a member of Legislative Assembly has knocked the door of High Court to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot keep our eyes shut towards the discriminatory treatment with the minor girls in awarding monetary relief to the minor girls subjected to rape. When member of Legislative Assembly is not satisfied with the answer given by the Government on the floor of the Assembly, he had no option but to approach the High Court. Member of Legislative Assembly is also a citizen of this country and he has equal rights to approach the Court when he feels aggrieved by the action of the State. Member of Legislative Assembly is also a citizen of this country and he has equal rights to approach the Court when he feels aggrieved by the action of the State. We find ourselves unable to agree with the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that since the matter was raised before the floor of the Assembly, High Court should not invoke extraordinary jurisdiction. When a member of Legislative Assembly has come up before us, it is our duty to interpret Rule 5 of Rajasthan Chief Minister Relief Fund Rules, 1999. Undoubtedly the Chief Minister is empowered to give financial relief to the minor victims of rape, but the words ' fdlh Hkh lhek rd ' (unlimited extent) used in 1999 Rules in our opinion are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We, therefore, substitute these words by the words ' leku :i ls fcuk HksnHkko ds ' (equally and without discrimination). 10. For these reasons, we allow the writ petition in the following terms: (i) Rule 5 of Rajasthan Chief Minister Relief Fund Rules, 1999 shall be read as under: " ;g dks"k eq[;ea=h ds v/khu gksxk rkfd os bl dks"k ls fdlh Hkh izdj.k esa leku :i ls fcuk HksnHkko ds fofRr; lgk;rk Lohd`r dj ldsaxsA " (This fund shall be under Hon'ble the Chief Minister so that he/she may utilise the fund equally and without discrimination for grant of financial help.) (ii) This order shall apply prospectively. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition Allowed. *******