Judgment : 1. The first respondent the City of Bhiwandi-Nizampur Municipal Corporation which is a Municipal Corporation established under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1949”) organized a Cricket Tournament called as “MahapourChashak” (Mayor's Cup) in January, 2013. It is not in dispute that out of the total budget allocation of Rs.50 lacs for sports activities for the entire financial year, a sum of Rs.24,90,000/- has been spent by the Municipal Corporation on the said Cricket Tournament. 2. The petitioner who is a resident of Bhiwandi town has filed this petition in this Court complaining about the illegalities in holding the said Tournament. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out several illegalities and irregularities in the matter of holding the said Cricket Tournament. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Commissioner has relied upon the affidavits on record and has stated that this event is being conducted for last several years and the Commissioner has followed the tradition which is being followed for several years. His attempt was to persuade this Court to hold that there is no illegality. 3. Obviously, this is not an adversarial litigation. The petitioner who is a tax payer of the Municipal Corporation has approached this Court and pointed out the manner in which the Municipal Corporation's funds are being spent. We have minutely perused the pleadings and documents on record. 4. Perusal of the affidavits filed by the Municipal Commissioner show that admittedly, there is no authorization for holding the said Cricket Tournament in the year 2013 in the name of the Mayor of the City either by the Standing Committee or by General Body of the Municipal Corporation. 5. From the affidavit dated 26th April, 2013 filed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, it appears that “the Challenge Sports Club” made an application dated 14th January, 2013 directly to the Mayor of the City for grant of permission to the said Club to organize the “Mahapour Chashak” Cricket Tournament. The Mayor, in turn, addressed a letter to the Commissioner on 15th January, 2013 requesting him to allow the said Club to arrange the said Tournament between 27th January, 2013 to 2nd February, 2013. On the said application, there is no objection endorsed by the sports officer of the Municipal Corporation. The Mayor, in turn, addressed a letter to the Commissioner on 15th January, 2013 requesting him to allow the said Club to arrange the said Tournament between 27th January, 2013 to 2nd February, 2013. On the said application, there is no objection endorsed by the sports officer of the Municipal Corporation. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner has recorded that for last few years the said club has been granted permission to hold the said Cricket Tournament. On the basis of the said notings, the Commissioner permitted the said Club to hold the Cricket Tournament in January. Neither in the application addressed by the Club nor in the letter addressed by the Mayor, there is any reference to the terms and conditions on which the said Club was proposing to organize the tournament. The letter dated 21st January, 2013 was issued by the Municipal Corporation to the said Club. The letter records that the tournament shall be organized jointly by the Corporation and the said Club and, therefore, the name of the said Club shall be mentioned as organizer along with the Municipal Corporation. It also records that on the banners, trophies, the names of Mayor and the Commissioner shall be specifically mentioned. It is stated that on the trophies and certificates to be given to the players as well as on the dresses to be provided to the players, passes, I-Cards, etc., the name of the Municipal Corporation and Challenge Sports Club shall be mentioned. It is stated that subject to the said conditions, permission was granted to the said Club to hold the Tournament. Thus, contents of the said letter indicate that the banners, trophies, dresses, I-cards, etc., were to be provided by the said Club and that is why a condition has been imposed by the Municipal Corporation that the names of the Mayor and the Municipal Commissioner or the said club and Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, shall be mentioned. No other condition has been incorporated in the said letter. 6. We may note here that in paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 26th April, 2013, the Commissioner has stated thus:- “3. I say that City Engineer of the corporation had called for names of appropriate agency from Dist. Deputy Registrar and Chairman Dist. Work Distribution Committee, for allotment of work. 6. We may note here that in paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 26th April, 2013, the Commissioner has stated thus:- “3. I say that City Engineer of the corporation had called for names of appropriate agency from Dist. Deputy Registrar and Chairman Dist. Work Distribution Committee, for allotment of work. I say that in accordance with recommendation received, work of providing video shooting and direct relay, 3 mega screens etc. for eight days was awarded to Hind Majoor Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit for Rs.10,00,000/- vide work order dated 19/1/2013. I say that in accordance with recommendation received, work of providing track suits for players and blazers for umpires was awarded to Sadanand Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit for Rs.14,90,000/- vide work order dated 19/1/2013. I say that in accordance with recommendation received, work of providing trophies, speaker system, stage and chairs, breakfast, banners and hoardings, fireworks was awarded to Sarathi Majoor Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit for Rs.7,75,000/- vide work order dated 19/1/2013. I say that pursuant to hearing of above petition dated 24/1/2013, work order of Sarathi Majoor Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha was cancelled on 24/1/2013 itself and said expenses were borne by Challenge Sports Club. I say that two work orders issued by the corporation have been duly placed before Standing Committee of the corporation on 14/2/2013.” (Underline added) Thus, it is apparent that a substantial amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was spent by the Municipal Corporation for video shooting and direct relay of the tournament and for providing 3 mega screens etc. for eight days. Moreover, for the track suits for players and blazers for umpires, the amount of Rs.14,90,000/- was spent not by the said Club but by the Municipal Corporation. The total amount comes to Rs.24,90,000/-. Mercifully, it is mentioned that another contract in the sum of Rs.7,75,000/- awarded to another Mazdoor Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha was cancelled and the said expenditure was borne by Club. 7. At this stage, we must note here that under Section 73 of the said Act of 1949, the Commissioner is empowered to make a contract involving expenditure exceeding Rs.5 lacs and not exceeding Rs.25 lacs. The said power is however controlled by Chapter V of Rules which form part of the schedule to said Act of 1949. Rule 2 of Chapter V reads thus:- “2. Tenders to be invited for certain contracts. The said power is however controlled by Chapter V of Rules which form part of the schedule to said Act of 1949. Rule 2 of Chapter V reads thus:- “2. Tenders to be invited for certain contracts. – (1) Except as is hereinafter otherwise provided, the Commissioner or any officer authorised by him in this behalf shall, at least seven days before entering into any contract for the execution of any work or the supply of any materials or goods which will involve an expenditure exceeding [two lakh] rupees or such higher amount as the Corporation may, with the approval of the [State] Government, from time to time prescribe, give notice by advertisement in the local newspapers, inviting tenders for such contract : [Provided that, the notice of any tender for contract below the amount of two lakhs rupees shall be uploaded on the official website of the Corporation] (2) The Commissioner shall not be bound to accept any tender which may be made in pursuance of such notice, but may accept, subject to the provision of clause (c) of section 73, any of the tenders so made which appears to him, upon a view of all the circumstances, to be the most advantageous : Provided that the Standing Committee may authorize the Commissioner, for reasons which shall be recorded in its proceedings, to enter into a contract without inviting tenders as herein provided or without accepting any tender which he may receive after having invited them.” On the last date, we had made a specific query whether the Standing Committee has authorized the Commissioner for reasons recorded in its proceedings to enter into such a contract without inviting tenders. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation and Commissioner stated today that there is no such authorization by the Standing Committee but the contracts were subsequently placed before the Standing Committee. He relies upon the Government Resolution dated 16th November, 2006 which according to him empowers the Commissioner to grant contracts to Mazdoor Sahakari Sanstha without inviting tenders. On a plain reading of the said Government Resolution dated 16th November, 2006, it applies to the construction work of Public Works Department and Irrigation Department of the State Government. In any case, there is no amendment made to Rule 2 of Chapter V forming part of the Schedule of the said Act. On a plain reading of the said Government Resolution dated 16th November, 2006, it applies to the construction work of Public Works Department and Irrigation Department of the State Government. In any case, there is no amendment made to Rule 2 of Chapter V forming part of the Schedule of the said Act. Looking to the Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2, the Commissioner could not have granted contracts in the sum of Rs.10 lacs and Rs.14,90,000/- respectively to the Mazdoor Sahakari Sanstha without inviting tenders. The exception carved out by proviso to Sub-Rule (2) will not apply in the present case as admittedly, there is no authorization by the Standing Committee as required by the proviso. The contracts which were executed by the Commissioner were merely placed before the Standing Committee for information. Thus, the action of awarding contracts to the said two societies by the Commissioner is illegal. 8. At this stage, it will be necessary to make a reference to various orders passed by this Court. In paragraph 3 of the order dated 24th January, 2013 this Court noted that out of the budgeted amount of Rs.50 lacs on sport activities, the Municipal Corporation has decided to spend an amount of Rs.30 lacs on only one event of the said tournament. In paragraph 4 of the said order, it is observed thus:- “4. ….. As aforesaid, spending of substantial portion of the budget, on one event, which will last only for three days, and moreso which has no causal connection with the welfare of the students of the Municipal Schools, to say the least, is abuse of authority and colourable exercise of power vested in the Authority to spend public exchequer. This cannot be countenanced.” 9. We may note that in paragraph 6 of the said order, this Court made it clear that even if the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the petition, the Court will treat this petition as a SuoMoto Petition. 10. In paragraph 3 of the order dated 22nd March, 2013, this Court has noted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that an entry fee of Rs.25,000/- per team was collected from 70 participating teams. 10. In paragraph 3 of the order dated 22nd March, 2013, this Court has noted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that an entry fee of Rs.25,000/- per team was collected from 70 participating teams. In the order dated 12th April, 2013, this Court recorded the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation and its Commissioner that the Municipal Corporation did not collect any amount towards the entry fee or any other charges from the participating teams and the said Club was not permitted to collect the said amount. In paragraph 7 of the order, it is noted that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was collected from every participating teams. We must note here that in the affidavit dated 26th April, 2013 filed by the Commissioner, he has not dealt with this aspect at all. In fact, on the last date, we had specifically invited the attention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation to the fact that the Commissioner has not stated that any inquiry was made by him to find out whether the said club collected any fees from the participating teams. On last date i.e. on 26th April, 2013 and even today, the Commissioner has chosen not to file any affidavit setting out whether any amount was collected by the said club from the participating teams. Today, there are four affidavits tendered by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner of the representatives of teams which participated in the said tournament stating that entry fee of Rs.25,000/- was collected by the said club from every team. We must note here that on this aspect, the Commissioner has chosen to keep a conspicuous silence. At least the letter dated 21st January, 2013 sent by the Municipal Corporation to the said Club does not permit the said club to collect any amount from the participating teams. 11. Thus, Mayor's Trophy Cricket Tournament was conducted without any authorization either by the Standing Committee or by the General Body of the Municipal Corporation. Contracts were granted in the sum of Rs.24,90,000/- in breach of Rules without inviting tenders. 11. Thus, Mayor's Trophy Cricket Tournament was conducted without any authorization either by the Standing Committee or by the General Body of the Municipal Corporation. Contracts were granted in the sum of Rs.24,90,000/- in breach of Rules without inviting tenders. In the process, out of budgeted amount of Rs.50 lacs allocated for the Sports activities for the entire year, nearly 50% of the amount was spent on the tournament in the name of the Mayor of the City. It will be also interesting to note that in paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 9th April, 2013 of the Commissioner, he has specifically admitted that Municipal Corporation is facing financial constraints. It will be necessary to note what the Commissioner has stated in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit:- “4. …. It however is correct that respondent no.1 corporation is facing financial constraints. I say that ideally corporation will require substantial sports budget if citizens are to be provided facilities and opportunity of playing various sports. I say that besides school children there are several other segments of society for which facilities should be provided. I however say that respondent no.1 corporation is not able to provide said facilities because of financial constraints. I say that sports budget therefore is required to be kept at minimum level. I say that because of financial constraints, there is no sports expenditure except on some activities/events being held since long, which have been continued keeping in mind public sentiments. I say that continuation of an event being held since long may not be found fault with merely because it consumes majority of budgeted expenditure in view of the fact that budget estimate was finalized keeping in view amount to be spent on the concerned event. I therefore say that argument of disproportionate expenditure has no merit.” (Underline Added) What is stated by the Commissioner as set out above speaks volumes. The Commissioner himself has set out the financial constraints. Due to financial constraints, the Municipal Corporation is not in a position to provide sports facilities not only to school children but to several other segments of society. On 24th January, 2013, this Court in its order has noted that there are 87 Municipal Schools in the Corporation area. 12. The Commissioner himself has set out the financial constraints. Due to financial constraints, the Municipal Corporation is not in a position to provide sports facilities not only to school children but to several other segments of society. On 24th January, 2013, this Court in its order has noted that there are 87 Municipal Schools in the Corporation area. 12. In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit of the Commissioner, it is contended that the decision to spend on the said event is a policy decision. We fail to understand as to which policy the Commissioner has referred to. The Commissioner has specifically contended that this Court should not interfere with the said policy decision. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 26th April, 2013, he has admitted that in the year 2013, there is neither any resolution of the Standing Committee nor General Body of the Corporation approving the holding of the said tournament. 13. Perusal of the documents annexed to the petition which were obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, show that in case of the same tournament in the year 2011, a resolution was passed by the General Body of the Corporation on 29th December, 2010 granting approval to the expenditure on the Tournament. It will be interesting to note that expenditure of Rs.30 lacs was sanctioned in the year 2011 for the Tournament, out of which a sum of Rs.24 lacs was permitted to be spent from the budgeted amount for sports activities and a sum of Rs.6 lacs was permitted to be used which was budgeted for maintaining and taking care of the Statues in the cities. The resolution authorises the same club to hold the Tournament. 14. Thus, the only conclusion which can be arrived at by taking factual statements in the affidavits filed by the Municipal Commissioner as correct is that right from inception, complete illegality has been committed by the Municipal Corporation as far as holding of the said Tournament for the year 2013 is concerned. Without any authority of law, the Tournament was allowed to be conducted by the said club. Without any legal authority, a sum of Rs.24,90,000/- was spent from the funds of the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation has not bothered even to verify whether the said club has unauthorisedly collected the entry fees to the extent of Rs.25,000/- from every team. Without any authority of law, the Tournament was allowed to be conducted by the said club. Without any legal authority, a sum of Rs.24,90,000/- was spent from the funds of the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation has not bothered even to verify whether the said club has unauthorisedly collected the entry fees to the extent of Rs.25,000/- from every team. The decision to utilize about 50% of the amount earmarked for the sports activity for the entire year on one tournament is certainly arbitrary. 15. At this stage, we may also note that in the order dated 24th January, 2013, this Court observed that considering that the event was around the corner, the Court was not inclined to interdict that event, but would certainly consider of issuing appropriate directions at a later stage, with regard to fixing of accountability and including whether any one of the Authority should be made responsible to reimburse the amount, after hearing both the parties. 16. Therefore, this is a fit case to issue a direction for holding an inquiry for fixing the responsibility. Hence, we direct the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department of the Government of Maharashtra to appoint any Secretary of the State Government to hold a fact finding enquiry on the illegalities committed by the Municipal Corporation which have been set out above in paragraph 14. In the fact finding enquiry, responsibility, if any, shall be fixed for illegal expenditure incurred by the Municipal Corporation. Officer so nominated shall also ascertain whether the said club has collected any entry fee or any other amount from the participating teams. It is obvious that this fact finding enquiry shall be made after giving a notice to all the concerned parties and after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the parties. Report shall be submitted by the concerned Officer directly to this Court in a sealed envelope. The report shall be submitted to this Court on or before 31st July, 2013. The Principal Secretary to act upon an authenticated copy of this order which shall be supplied to him by the Office of the Government Pleader. 17. We direct that this petition shall be listed under the caption of “Directions” on 5th August, 2013.