ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the unequal distribution of funds released by the Central Government under the 14th Financial Scheme for developmental works of the Corporation, these petitions are filed by the elected Corporators of different wards of the City Corporation of Vijayapur for the following reliefs: “(i) Quash the Action Plan dated 18.07.2018 in file No.GNK/14NHAFM/TR/2018-19, approved by the respondent No.2 herein, the copy of which is at AnnexureB: “(ii) Quash the tender notification dated 23.07.2018, in file No.MNPV/LE/14th FF/GVG/TP/201819, issued by the Executive Engineer, City Corporation, Vijayapura, the respondent No.6, the certified copy of which is at Annexure F; (iii) Quash the Corrigendum dated 03.08.2018 in file No.MNPV/LE/14th FF/GVG/TP/201819, issued by the respondent No.6, the certified copy of which is at AnnexureF1; (vi) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents No.2 to 4 & 6 herein to redo the action plan by allocating the funds of the State equally and scientifically for developmental work of different Ward of city Vijayapura, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice. (v) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Petitioners are the elected Corporators from different wards of the City Corporation, Vijayapur. Respondent No.5 was elected as Mayor of the City Corporation, Vijayapur in the month of July 2017 for a period of one year up to the end of July 2018. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 State of Karnataka has allocated funds to the extent of Rs.14 Crores in favour of respondent No.3Croporation for the financial year 201718 for the purpose of developmental works to be taken up in different wards of the City Corporation. Though respondent Nos.3 to 5 had knowledge that the term of respondent No.5 as Mayor would end by July 2018, respondent No.3 hastily and dishonestly prepared an incorrect and irrational action plan showing unequal and absurd allocation of funds only for few chosen wards. 3. It is alleged in the petition that in the meeting held on 07.07.2018, concern was raised by the petitioners and objections were made for unequal allocation of funds in favour of only few wards and a request was made not to prepare the action plan. 3. It is alleged in the petition that in the meeting held on 07.07.2018, concern was raised by the petitioners and objections were made for unequal allocation of funds in favour of only few wards and a request was made not to prepare the action plan. It is alleged that in spite of the objections raised by the petitioners, respondent Nos.3 to 5 stealthily prepared a false action plan and based on the said action plan (Annexure – B) with ulterior motive and on extraneous consideration, tender notifications were issued as per Annexures – F and F1. Contending that the tender notifications issued by the respondents are contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and the allocation of the funds has been made only to the chosen wards illegally and unequally with an ulterior motive and extraneous consideration, the petitioners have sought to quash the impugned action plan Annexure – B and the tender notifications Annexures F and F1 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and being contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. 4. Respondent No.3 has filed statement of objections inter alia contending that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief sought for in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners have no locus standi to file the above captioned writ petitions. It is contended that the decision taken in the meeting was approved by the Deputy Commissioner and the petitioners though had raised objections for allocating the funds to certain wards, yet, the decision having been taken based on majority view, the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the petitions. 5. It is further contended that the funds released by the Government and generated by respondent No.3 are equally distributed to all the wards part wise in different resolution to balance the work in the budget. Under previous resolution at Annexures – R3(b), (b1) (c), (c1), (d) (d1) and (e), the funds were allocated to other wards. Therefore, the allegations made in the writ petitions are misconceived and cannot be made a ground to grant reliefs sought for by the petitioners. The facts and grounds urged in the petition are disputed and therefore the same cannot be adjudicated under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and thus, respondent No.3 sought for dismissal of the petitions. 6. The facts and grounds urged in the petition are disputed and therefore the same cannot be adjudicated under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and thus, respondent No.3 sought for dismissal of the petitions. 6. Having noticed that respondent No.5 while utilizing the funds for development of 30 wards of Vijayapur has earmarked the same for development of only 12 wards under the impugned resolution at Annexure – A, leaving other 20 wards without any allocation which on the face of it appeared to be arbitrary in nature, by order dated 16.08.2018, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 were directed to place on record the resolution passed in the meeting of the Corporation with reference to the disbursement of money allocated for development of all the wards of Vijayapur. Further by order dated 21.01.2019, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 were directed to file affidavit before the Court in terms of the order dated 16.08.2018. In response thereto Dr. Audram, the Commissioner of City Corporation, Vjayapur has filed his affidavit dated 28.01.2019, wherein he has asserted as under : “ b) The decision taken in the meeting approved by the Deputy Commissioner, allocating funds to following wards, they are ward Nos. 01,07,08,10,11,13,16, 18, 22, 29, 32, 33, 35 and accordingly tenders were called. c) It is submitted, in the 14th Finance Scheme, the Central Government sponsored / grant transferred to the local bodies i.e. Municipality and Corporation, for unconditional financial support for providing basic amenities. d) The deponent submits that, for the year 201819, the Central Government released Rs.1533.36 lakhs only (Rupees Fifteen Crores Thirty Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand only), and in the meeting held on 07.07.2018, the fund came to be allocated to the wards referred in para2(b) of this affidavit, since it is the practice of the corporation that, the funds equally distributed to all the wards in the corporation part wise in different resolution to balance the work and the budget. If the present fund distributed to all the wards, i.e., 35 wards, it became impracticable to execute the works since all the wards could not get sufficient funds to carry out the work, therefore, to execute the public work effectively the above wards were allocated funds.” 7. There is no explanation in the affidavit as to why this practice was deviated during the year 201819. There is no explanation in the affidavit as to why this practice was deviated during the year 201819. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that depending upon the need and requirement of each ward, funds are being released cannot be accepted at its face value. The facts shown in the affidavit indicate that funds were released only to ward Nos. 01, 07, 08, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 29, 32, 33, 35. 8. If infact, the funds were allotted in the order of priority, the resolution passed by the respondent should reflect that all the works awaiting implementation in the respective wards were taken into account and considering the priority, funds were released to respective wards. But a perusal of the impugned resolution discloses that the works pending in all the wards were not taken into account while releasing the funds. There seems to be no guideline or resolution to govern the allotment of the funds. The statements made in the affidavit imply that the works of equal importance or priority were pending execution in other wards as well. In the said circumstances, to be fair and reasonable, the corporation was required to enumerate all the pending works in all the wards and categorize them in the order of priority and make adequate provision for release of funds in installments over the years. The very fact that works pending in all the wards were not taken into account while releasing the funds has vitiated the action of the respondents. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any provision of law or regulation governing the guidelines for allotment of the funds to the various wards but that does not confer unbridled or unfettered power on the respondents to prepare the action plan at their whims and fancies. Any action and decision of the public body is required to pass the test of Constitutional “principles of equality, fairness, reasonableness, non discrimination, transparency, non capricious, unbiased and without favoritism and more importantly in pursuit of promotion of objectives of corporation guided by equitable terms”. 9. Any action and decision of the public body is required to pass the test of Constitutional “principles of equality, fairness, reasonableness, non discrimination, transparency, non capricious, unbiased and without favoritism and more importantly in pursuit of promotion of objectives of corporation guided by equitable terms”. 9. In this context, it may be apposite to refer to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.P.Rayappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another reported in AIR 1974 SC 555 , wherein it is stated that: “Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be “cribbed, cabined and confined” within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to malafide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Malafide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice: in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16.” 10. In the instant case, on considering the action plan prepared by the respondent and the contentions urged by the respondents, I am of the view that the allocation made by the respondents without taking into account the nature of work requiring attention in other wards and without making provisions for implementation of the works pending in various wards smacks of arbitrariness and offends the principle of equality. It is now well settled that arbitrariness is also a part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as held in the above decision. I am convinced that the impugned action plan suffers from the vice of favoritism and arbitrariness and the same therefore cannot be sustained. 11. Coming to the objection raised by the contesting respondents regarding the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the writ petition is concerned, there can be no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the right under Article 226 can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the prayer in the writ petition is for habeas corpus or quowarranto. In the instant case, petitioners are none other than the elected representatives of the Corporation who in law are trustees of the funds placed at the disposal of the Corporation. Therefore, petitioners have a right in the allocation of the funds placed at the disposal of the Corporation for execution of the developmental works through out the Corporation. Unjust use of the said funds and unequal distribution thereof affecting the developmental works of the wards represented by the petitioners would undoubtedly render them aggrieved person entitling them to espouse the cause of the general public. 12. As explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gadde Venkatesh Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in AIR 1966 SC 828 . “A personal right need not be in respect of a proprietary interest: it can also relate to an interest of a trustee. That apart, in exceptional cases as the expression “ordinarily” indicates, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority can file a writ even though he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject matter thereof.” 13. Petitioners being the Corporators of the respective wards who are entrusted with the duty of utilizing the public funds for the welfare of the members of the wards are certainly prejudiced and affected by the partisan action of the respondents and therefore there can be no manner of doubt regarding the right of the petitioners to maintain a writ petition to espouse the cause of the respective wards they are representing. 14. 14. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the action plan prepared by respondent No.3 at Annexure-B and the consequent notification calling for tenders vide notification dated 23.07.2018 in file No.MNPV/LE/14th FF/GVG/TP/201819 and the corrigendum dated 03.08.2018 in file No.MNPV/LE/14th FF/GVG/TP/201819, issued by respondent No.6, the Executive Engineer, City Corporation, Vijayapura vide Annexures F and F1 being arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and partisan is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 15. Respondents are directed to prepare a fresh action plan taking into account all the works pending or awaiting implementation in all the wards of the City Corporation of Vijayapur and provide for equitable and reasonable distribution of the funds allocated for the developmental works in the order of priority in the light of the observations made in this order. Petitions are allowed in terms of the above order. In view of the disposal of the petitions, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.