ORDER Gangele, J. -- 1. This pro bono publico petition has been filed by the petitioner in regard to inclusion of Gwalior in the Scheme named as “Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission” (hereinafter referred to as the “JNNURM Scheme”). 2. The petitioner, who is a businessman and resident of Gwalior, has pleaded that he is a social activist and he has no personal grievance in the matter. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Union of India has not considered the claim of Gwalior city for inclusion in JNNURM Scheme. 3. The Union of India constituted a Mission for the purpose of fast track, planned development of identified cities with focus on efficiency in urban infrastructure/services delivery mechanism, community participation and accountability of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs)/Parastatals towards citizen. The objectives of the Mission as mentioned in the Modified Guidelines, Annexure P-1 are as under : “4. Mission Objectives. -- (a) Focused attention to integrated development of infrastructural services in the cities covered under the Mission. (b) Secure effective linkages between asset creation and asset management so that the infrastructural services created in the cities are not only maintained efficiently but also become self-sustaining over time. (c) Ensure adequate investment of funds to fulfill deficiencies in the urban infrastructural services. (d) Planned development of identified cities including peri-urban areas, out growths, urban corridors, so that urbanization takes place in a dispersed manner. (e) Scale up delivery of civic amenities and provision of utilities with emphasis on universal access to urban por. (f) To take up urban renewal programme, i.e., re-development of inner (old) cities area to reduce congestion.” Sixty-three cities were covered initially under the Mission in accordance with clause 8 of the Policy Mission Coverage. The relevant clause is as under : “8. Mission Coverage. -- Keeping in view the paucity of resources and administrative constraints in taking up all cities and towns under this intensive urban infrastructure improvement programme, it is suggested that under JNNURM only selected cities/Urban Agglomerations (UAs) as per 2001 Census will be taken up, as per norms/criteria mentioned below : A. Cities/UAs with 4 million plus population as per 07 2001 Census. B. Cities/UAs with 1 million plus but less than 4 28 million population as per 2001 Census. C. Selected cities/UAs (State Capitals and other 28 cities/UAs of religious/historic and touristic importance. B. Cities/UAs with 1 million plus but less than 4 28 million population as per 2001 Census. C. Selected cities/UAs (State Capitals and other 28 cities/UAs of religious/historic and touristic importance. Complete list of cities/Urban Agglomeration/towns covered under the Mission are given at Annexure I.” Annexure I List of identified cities/urban agglomerations (UA) as per 2001 Census : Sl. City/UA Name of the Population No. State (in lacs) (a) Mega cities/UAs 1. Delhi Delhi 128.77 2. Greater Mumbai Maharashtra 164.34 3. Ahmedabad Gujarat 45.25 4. Bangalore Karnataka 57.01 5. Chennai Tamil Nadu 65.60 6. Kolkata West Bengal 132.06 7. Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh 57.42 (b) Million-plus cities/UAs 1. Patna Bihar 16.98 2. Faridabad Haryana 10.56 3. Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 14.58 4. Ludhiana Punjab 13.98 5. Jaipur Rajasthan 23.27 6. Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 22.46 7. Madurai Tamil Nadu 12.03 8. Nasik Maharashtra 11.52 9. Pune Maharashtra 37.60 10. Cochin Kerala 13.55 11. Varanasi Uttar Pradesh 12.04 12. Agra Uttar Pradesh 13.31 13. Amritsar Punjab 10.03 14. Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh 13.45 15. Vadodara Gujarat 14.91 16. Surat Gujarat 28.11 17. Kanpur Uttar Pradesh 27.15 18. Nagpur Maharashtra 21.29 19. Coimbatore Tamil Nadu 14.61 20. Meerut Uttar Pradesh 11.61 21. Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh 10.98 22. Jamshedpur Jharkhand 11.04 23. Asansol West Bengal 10.67 24. Allahabad Uttar Pradesh 10.42 25. Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh 10.39 26. Rajkot Gujarat 10.03 27. Dhanbad Jharkhand 10.65 28. Indore Madhya Pradesh 16.40 (c) Identified cities/UAs with less than one million population 1. Guwahati Assam 8.19 2. Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 0.35 3. Jammu Jammu & Kashmir 6.12 4. Raipur Chhattisgarh 7.00 5. Panaji Goa 0.99 6. Shimla Himachal Pradesh 1.45 7. Ranchi Jharkhand 8.63 8. Thiruvanantha Puram Kerala 8.90 9. Imphal Manipur 2.50 10. Shillong Meghalaya 2.68 11. Aizawal Mizoram 2.28 12. Kohima Nagaland 0.77 13. Bhubaneshwar Orissa 6.58 14. Gangtok Sikkim 0.29 15. Agartala Tripura 1.90 16. Dehradun Uttaranchal 5.30 17. Bodh Gaya Bihar 3.94 18. Ujjain Madhya Pradesh 4.31 19. Puri Orissa 1.57 20. Ajmer-Pushkar Rajasthan 5.04 21. Nainital Uttaranchal 2.20 22. Mysore Karnataka 7.99 23. Pondicherry Pondicherry 5.05 24. Chandigarh Punjab & Haryana 8.08 25. Srinagar Jammu & Kashmir 9.88 26. Mathura Uttar Pradesh 3.23 27. Hardwar Uttaranchal 2.21 28. Nanded Maharashtra 4.31 4. To steer the Mission objectives, a National Steering Group was consituted consisting following persons : i. Minister of Urban Development Chairman ii. Minister of HUPA Co-Chairperson iii. Secretary (HUPA) Member iv. Pondicherry Pondicherry 5.05 24. Chandigarh Punjab & Haryana 8.08 25. Srinagar Jammu & Kashmir 9.88 26. Mathura Uttar Pradesh 3.23 27. Hardwar Uttaranchal 2.21 28. Nanded Maharashtra 4.31 4. To steer the Mission objectives, a National Steering Group was consituted consisting following persons : i. Minister of Urban Development Chairman ii. Minister of HUPA Co-Chairperson iii. Secretary (HUPA) Member iv. Secretary, Planning Commission Member v. Secretary (Expenditure) Member vi. National Technical Advisor Member vii. Secretary (Urban Development) Member-Convener. In the policy it is mentioned that a higher priority would be assigned for sanctioning certain projects. The relevant clause 14.3 of the policy is as under : “14.3 The Committee would assign higher priority in sanctioning projects of urban renewal, water supply including sanitation, sewerage, solid waste management, drainage, urban transport including roads.” Vide notification dated 9th January, 2006, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-1, the President constituted a National Steering Group consisting the following members with following objectives : Notification No. K-14012/1/2006-JNNURM. The President is pleased to constitute a National Steering Group (NSG) under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission as follows : i. Minister of Urban Development Chairman ii. Minister of State (Independent Charge), Co- Urban Employment & Poverty Alleviation Chairperson iii. Secretary, Urban Employment and Member Poverty Alleviation iv. Secretary, Planning Commission Member v. Secretary, Expenditure Member vi. National Technical Advisor Member vii. Secretary, Urban Development Member Convener The NSG shall facilitate achievement of objectives of JNNURM. The NSG may additional reforms to the identified reforms and may also consider addition or deletion of cities/towns under Category-C (other than State capitals), based on the suggestions received from the State Governments. The number of cities under the Mission shall, however, remain around 60. 5. From the perusal of the guidelines of the Mission and Objectives of the Mission, it is clear that the Mission has been constituted for planned development of identified cities specifically water supply including sanitation, sewerage, solid waste management, drainage, urban transport including roads. The representatives of Gwalior region were anxious for inclusion of Gwalior in the aforesaid Mission. The Mayor of Gwalior city met with the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, when he visited Gwalior on 8th December, 2005 and made a prayer to him that the Gwalior be included in the Mission. The representatives of Gwalior region were anxious for inclusion of Gwalior in the aforesaid Mission. The Mayor of Gwalior city met with the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, when he visited Gwalior on 8th December, 2005 and made a prayer to him that the Gwalior be included in the Mission. The Mayor of Gwalior again on 18.3.2010 and 21.6.2011 wrote letters to the Minister, Urban Development Department in regard to inclusion of name of Gwalior in the Mission. Similarly, the Member of Parliament also wrote a letter on 19.8.2010, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-4 along with the petition. The following reasons have been assigned for inclusion of Gwalior in the Mission by the Member of Parliament : Proposal to include Gwalior in JNNURM : 1. The population of Gwalior city as per Census 2001 was taken as 8.27 lacs leaving behind the population of SADA, MES, Air force and contanment areas. The total population inclusive of SADA, MES, Air force and contanment area of Gwalior city as per Census 2001 works out to 10.14 lacs. Due to over look, the total population could not come to the notice of design makers. Therefore, Gwalior city was made ineligible to be included in JNNURM in the first phase itself. 2. The fund allocation in the UIDSSMT is very limited as compared to the fund availability in JNNURM. The status of fund allocation under UIDSSMT and JNNURM for four major cities of Madhya Pradesh is as under : No. Name of city Name of Amount sanction Scheme (Rs. in crore) 1. Indore JNNURM 3,000.00 2. Bhopal JNNURM 1,500.00 3. Jabalpur JNNURM 632.00 4. Gwalior UIDSSMT 66.50 3. Under JNNURM the total mission cities were to be 60 which have already been increased to 65. If the cities can be increased to 65, from the target of 60, there can be inclusion of one more city i.e. Gwalior making the total cities to 66. 4. Gwalior, being the heritage city, has similar population, traffic, tourism potential, growth pattern etc. as compared to Bhopal, Jabalpur. Similar are the expectations of city dwellers, decision makers, public representatives etc. for the development of the city Gwalior. For such versatile development, Municipal Corporation Gwalior does not have financial capacity to take such infrastructure works without big external financial support. Gwalior, being the heritage city, has similar population, traffic, tourism potential, growth pattern etc. as compared to Bhopal, Jabalpur. Similar are the expectations of city dwellers, decision makers, public representatives etc. for the development of the city Gwalior. For such versatile development, Municipal Corporation Gwalior does not have financial capacity to take such infrastructure works without big external financial support. In the present time no other scheme could provide the funding support of the magnitude of JNNURM mission cities. Hence, the city needs to be included in JNNURM. 6. The Hon’ble Minister of Urban Development Department, Government of India vide letter dated 12th October, 2010, informed the Member of Parliament that already 65 cities had been covered under the Mission. Hence, it would not be possible to include Gwalior under the aforesaid Mission, however, the city would be provided benefit under another scheme known as Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT). A copy of the letter has been filed as Annexure P-5 along with the petition. 7. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development Department, Government of India, filed two counter affidavits to the writ petition. He pleaded that orginally 63 cities were selected as Mission cities on the basis of Census 2001 figures as approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs in its meeting held on 17.11.2005. Subsequently 2 more cities viz. Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh and Porbandar in Gujarat were added to the list and at present, there are 65 Mission cities. 8. In the 4th meeting of National Steering Group held on 31.3.2008, the proposal was considered in regard to inclusion of towns such as Tirpati, Ayodhya, Gwalior, Panipat, Aurangabad, Porbandar. However, it was not found possible to include those cities, hence, it was decided to defer the decision on the consideration. Thereafter in the 5th meeting held on 5.1.2009 of National Steering Group, it was decided to recommend inclusion of Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh and Porbandar in Gujarat under UIG/BSUP component of JNNURM. Copies of the minutes of 5th meeting of National Steering Group, held on 31.3.2008 and 5.1.2009 have been filed along with the reply as Annexure III and IV. 9. Copies of the minutes of 5th meeting of National Steering Group, held on 31.3.2008 and 5.1.2009 have been filed along with the reply as Annexure III and IV. 9. In the meeting dated 31.3.2008, the subject of inclusion of more cities in JNNURM was considered and following decision was taken : “Police issues for consideration of NSG : (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) Inclusion of more cities in JNNURM Gaya (Bihar) and Sultanpur Lodhi. It was noted that similarly placed towns such as Tirupati, Ayodhya, Gwalior, Panipat, Aurangabad, Porbandar have also sought for inclusion. The acceptance of the request for Sultanpur Lodhi may lead to further similar requests and it may not be possible to limit the number of cities to around 63. Hence, it was decided to defer the decision on this for consideration separately.” [Action : Ministry of Urban Development] Thereafter another meeting was held on 5.1.2009. The minutes of the Meeting have been filed as Annexure R-IV along with the reply of Union of India and following decision was taken in regard to inclusion of Porbandar and Tirupati : (v) Inclusion of cities under Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG) and Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP) component of JNNURM. As per para 11.3 of the guidelines of JNNURM, the National Steering Group has the mandate to consider addition, deletion of cities/towns under category C (other than State Capitals) based on the suggestions received from State Governments. The number of cities under the Mission shall however, remain around 60. Requests from 18 cities for inclusion under UIG/BSUP components of JNNURM were considered. It was decided to recommend inclusion of Porbandar and Tirupati under the UIG/BSUP component of JNNURM within the overall financial allocation. With regard to the practice of placing the matter of inclusion of cities before CCEA, Secretary HUPA observed that as per the guidelines the NSG was the competent authority for the purpose. It was decided however that the matter of inclusion of the two cities would be intimated to the Hon’ble Prime Minister. (Action : Ministry of Urban Development and M/o Housing and Urban Poverity Alleviation) From the perusal of the minutes of the Meetings, it is clear that no reasons have been assigned by the National Steering Group to exclude other cities including Gwalior from JNNURM and include two cities, namely, Porbandar and Tirupati. 10. (Action : Ministry of Urban Development and M/o Housing and Urban Poverity Alleviation) From the perusal of the minutes of the Meetings, it is clear that no reasons have been assigned by the National Steering Group to exclude other cities including Gwalior from JNNURM and include two cities, namely, Porbandar and Tirupati. 10. The object of Mission is for planned development of certain cities, so a basic service and infrastructure facilities in the aforesaid cities could be enhanced, which includes water supply, sanitqation, sewerage, solid waste management, drainage, urban transport including roads. All these facilities are necessary for comfortable living so the quality of life of the residents of the cities could be enhanced. In such circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the National Steering Group and the Mission to consider the inclusion of the cities objectively, that could only be presumed if proper reasons have been assigned by the Steering Group in considering the claims or rejecting the claim of the different cities. Even though no record has been produced before this Court to show that on what basis the National Steering Group decided to recommend of inclusion of Tirupati and Porbandar in the Mission. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in (2010)9 SCC 496, has held as under in regard to recording reasons in administrative decisions after considering various previous judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other countries : “36. In Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital [ AIR 2000 SC 3138 :2000 AIR SCW 3409), a three Judge Bench of this Court, dealing with a grievance under CP Act, held that the authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is, therefore, imperative that such a body should arrive at conclusions based on reasons. This Court held that the said Act, being one of the benevolent pieces of legislation, is intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation as the said Act provides for an alternative mode for consumer justice by the process of a summary trial. The powers which are exercised are definitely quasi-judicial in nature and in such a situation the conclusions must be based on reasons and held that requirement of recording reasons is “too obvious to be reiterated and needs no emphasizing”. The powers which are exercised are definitely quasi-judicial in nature and in such a situation the conclusions must be based on reasons and held that requirement of recording reasons is “too obvious to be reiterated and needs no emphasizing”. (See SCC p.673, para 11:AIR p.3141 of the Report). 37. Only in cases of Court-Martial, this Court struck a different note in two of its Constitution Bench decisions, the first of which was rendered in the case of Som Datt Datta v. Union of India [ AIR 1969 SC 414 ], Mr. Justice Ramaswami delivering the judgment for the unanimous Constitution Bench held that provisions of sections 164 and 165 of the Army Act do not require an order confirming proceedings of Court-Martial to be supported by reasons. The Court held that an order confirming such proceedings does not become illegal if it does not record reasons (AIR pp.421-422, para 10 of the Report). 38. About two decades thereafter, a similar question cropped up before this Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [ AIR 1990 SC 1984 ]. A unanimous Constitution Bench speaking through Justice S.C. Agrawal confirmed its earlier decision in Som Datt (supra), in para 47 at page 2000 of the report and held reasons are not required to be recorded for an order confirming the finding and sentence recorded by the Court-Martial. 39. It must be remembered in this connection that the Court-Martial as a proceeding is sui generis in nature and the Court of Court-Martial is different, being called a Court of Honour and the proceeding therein are slightly different from other proceedings. About the nature of Court-Martial and its proceedings the observations of winthrop in Military Law and Precedents are very pertinent and are extractred hereinbelow: “Not belonging to the judicial branch of the Government, if follows that Court-Martial must pertain to the executive department; and they are in fact simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by Congress for the President as Commander-in-Chief, to aid him in properly commanding the Army and Navy and enforcing discipline therein, and utilized under his orders or those of his authorized military representatives.” 40. Our Constitution also deals with Court-Martial proceedings differently as is clear from Articles 33, 136(2) and 227(4) of the Constitution. 41. In England there was no common law duty of recording of reasons. Our Constitution also deals with Court-Martial proceedings differently as is clear from Articles 33, 136(2) and 227(4) of the Constitution. 41. In England there was no common law duty of recording of reasons. In Marta Stefan v. General Medical Council [(1999)1 WLR 1293], it has been held : “the established position of the common law is that there is no general duty imposed on our decision makers to record reasons.” It has been acknowledged in the Justice Report, Administration Under Law (1971) at page 23 that : “No single factor has inhibited the development of English administrative law as seriously as the absence of any general obligation upon public authorities to give reasons for their decisions.” 42. Even then in the case of R. v. Civil Service Appeal Board, ex parte Cunningham, reported in (1991)4 All ER 310, Lord Donaldson, Master of Rolls, opined very strongly in favour of disclosing of reasons in a case where the Court is acting in its discretion. The learned Master of Rolls said : “.... It is a corollary of the discretion conferred upon the Board that it is their duty to set out their reasoning in sufficient form to show the principles on which they have proceeded. Adopting Lord Lane C.J’s observations {in R. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Khan (Mahmud) [(1983)2 All ER 420 at 423, (1983) QB 790 at 794-795]}, the reasons for the lower amount is not obvious. Mr. Cunningham is entitled to know, either expressly or inferentially stated, what it was to which the Board were addressing their mind in arriving at their conclusion. It must be obvious to the Board that Mr. Cunningham is left with a burning sense of grievance. They should be sensitive to the fact that he is left with a real feeling of injustice, that having been found to have been unfairly dismissed, he has been deprived of his just desserts (as he sees them).” 43. The learned Master of Rolls further clarified by saying : (Civil Service Appeal Board case, (1991)4 All ER p.317) : “.... Thus, in the particular circumstances of this case, and without wishing to establish any precedent whatsoever, I am prepared to spell out an obligation on this Board to give succinct reasons, if only to put the mind of Mr. Cunningham at rest. I would therefore allow this application.” 44. Thus, in the particular circumstances of this case, and without wishing to establish any precedent whatsoever, I am prepared to spell out an obligation on this Board to give succinct reasons, if only to put the mind of Mr. Cunningham at rest. I would therefore allow this application.” 44. But, however, the present trend of the law has been towards an increasing recognition of the duty of Court to give reasons {See North Range Shipping Limited v. Seatrans Shipping Corporation [(2002)1 WLR 2398]}. It has been acknowledged that this trend is consistent with the development towards openness in Government and judicial administration. 45. In English v. Emery Reimbold and Strick Limited [(2002)1 WLR 2409], it has been held that justice will not be done if it is not apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost. The House of Lords in Cullen v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [(2003)1 WLR 1763], Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Steyn, on the requirement of reason held (WLR p.1769, para 7): “7. .... First, they impose a discipline ... which may contribute to such decisions being considered with care. Secondly, reasons encourage transparency ... Thirdly, they assist the Courts in performing their supervisory function if judicial review proceedings are launched.” 46. The position in the United States has been indicated by this Court in S.N. Mukherjee [ AIR 1990 SC 1984 ] (supra), in paragraph 11 at page 1988 of the judgment. This Court held that in the United States the Courts have always insisted on the recording of reasons by administrative authorities in exercise of their powers. It was further held that such recording of reasons is required as “the Court cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review”. In S.N. Mukherjee (supra), this Court relied on the decisions of the U.S. Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation [(1942)87 Law Ed. 626] and John T. Dunlop v. Walter Bachowski [(1975)44 Law Ed. 377], in support of its opinion discussed above. 47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds : “(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. 377], in support of its opinion discussed above. 47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds : “(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons re-assure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the Judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reasons is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ‘rubber stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision- making not only makes the Judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision- making not only makes the Judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. {See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987)100 Harward Law Review 731-737]}. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See [(1994)19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford. 2001 EWCA Civ. 405], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires : “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions.” (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”.” 12. From the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that in an administrative decision, it is necessary to record the reasons. The decision of National Steering Group taken in its meeting held on 5.1.2009 in which it has been decided to include two cities namely, Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh and Porbandar in Gujarat, is an administrative decision and the rights of other cities have been affected adversely due to the aforesaid decision because the cities have been left out by certain benefits, hence, in our opinion, it was obligatory on the part of the National Steering Group to consider the merits of the cities and assign proper reasons in regard to inclusion of certain cities in the Mission. 13. The Union of India has not pleaded in the reply and the counter affidavit filed by the Under Secretary as to what were the reasons of inclusion of two cities namely, Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh and Porbandar in Gujarat in the Mission. 13. The Union of India has not pleaded in the reply and the counter affidavit filed by the Under Secretary as to what were the reasons of inclusion of two cities namely, Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh and Porbandar in Gujarat in the Mission. At this stage, in our opinion, inclusion of the aforesaid two cities could not be disturbed because the Mission in its terminal order, however, if some benefit has not been given to a particular city or its claims have not been considered by the Mission objectively then a direction can always be issued to the National Steering Group or the Union of India to consider the merits of claims of the city and if it is found that the city is eligible or has merit to be included in the Mission, then certainly the benefit can be granted to the city. 14. In this view of the matter, this public interest litigation petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the claim of Gwalior city and its merit in regard to inclusion of its name in the Mission and if it be found suitable then the benefits be accorded to the city. The order be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 15. Looking to the facts of the case, the respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) to the petitioner. .............