JUDGMENT : (Mangesh S. Patil, J.) : Heard. Rule in all the petitions. It is made returnable forthwith. At the joint request of the parties all these matters raising similar issues are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 3797/2023 and Writ Petition No. 5088/2023 are taken as lead petitions with the consent of all the petitioners and the respondents from the rest of the petitions. 2. By invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the association of managements of unaided engineering colleges and individual managements are putting up a challenge to clause nos. 11.1 and 11.2 of the guidelines issued by the respondent no. 1- Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, laying down guidelines in respect of the Post Matric Scholarships to the Students Belonging to Scheduled Castes for Studies in India (2020-21 to 2025-26) issued in the month of March 2021 (hereinafter ‘Guidelines’). In some of these petitions there is a challenge to even the subsequent government resolution issued by the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department of the Government of Maharashtra (respondent no. 2 in WP no. 3797/2022) dated 17.03.2022 adopting the Guidelines. 3. Before adverting to the rival submissions it would be apt to understand the scenario leading to the dispute : With the avowed object of ameliorating the conditions of the Scheduled Caste students who are unable to pursue higher education for want of means, a scheme has been in place at least since 1959-60. It is in the nature of financial assistance for taking higher education in specified fields. The private institutions operating in the field like the petitioners are mandated to admit the students belonging to Scheduled Castes, without charging any fees and are being reimbursed the tuition fees, hostel fees etc. by the Union and the State Governments. Till the Guidelines were issued in March 2021, the institutions were being reimbursed by directly crediting money in their accounts. The impugned clauses 11.1 and 11.2 which seek to change this mechanism are the bone in the flesh. These clauses mandate that any disbursement of the entire scholarship amount including the tuition fees, academic allowance and any other admissible allowance to be paid directly into the account of the students only, through Direct Beneficiary Transfer (DBT), preferably through an Aadhaar Based Payment System (ABPS) (Aadhaar Payment Bridge) from the year 2021-22. These clauses mandate that any disbursement of the entire scholarship amount including the tuition fees, academic allowance and any other admissible allowance to be paid directly into the account of the students only, through Direct Beneficiary Transfer (DBT), preferably through an Aadhaar Based Payment System (ABPS) (Aadhaar Payment Bridge) from the year 2021-22. Even the State Governments have been mandated to release the payments through Public Financial Management System (PFMS) so that the accounts of the students need not be required to be validated again. The State Governments are also directed to release their share of 40% directly into the bank account of the students. The clauses 11.1 and 11.2 read as under : “11.1 The entire scholarship amount-both from the State and Central Government-including the tuition fees, academic allowance and any other admissible allowance will be paid directly into the account of the students ONLY through DBT preferably through an Aadhar Based Payment System (Aadhaar Payment Bridge) from 2021-22. The States shall preferably release the payments through PFMS System so that the accounts of the students are not required to be validated again. 11.2 Starting from 2021-22, the Central share in the scheme would also be released on DBT mode directly into the bank accounts of the students, after ensuring that the concerned State Government has released their share.” Though the State Government adopted these Guidelines by a resolution dated 17.03.2022, it was expressly laid down therein that the 40% share of the State Government would be released through DBT Portal in the students bank account and the institutes bank account separately, through PFMS directly. It appears that with a little modification another resolution was passed by the State Government on 07.07.2023 but maintaining the practice that was decided to be followed by the government resolution dated 17.03.2022. The issue involved and the apprehension being entertained by the institutions is to the effect that operation of these clauses 11.1 and 11.2 would cause prejudice to their interest inasmuch as, the institutions would be reimbursed only if the concerned student, as mandated in the Guidelines, transfers their share within a week of receipt of the scholarship money in the account. It is their grievance that the governments do not release the scholarship in a timely manner. It is their grievance that the governments do not release the scholarship in a timely manner. There is a possibility of students leaving the institutions in the meantime and they cannot be expected to run after the students who might have already left the institutions. It is in this context that the challenge is being put up to the mechanism provided in clauses 11.1 and 11.2 which mandates scholarship amounts to be credited directly in the students account only including the share to which the petitioner-institutions are entitled to by way of reimbursement. 4. The learned senior advocate Mr. Hon and learned advocates Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar, learned advocate Mr. Khandare and learned advocate Ms. Talekar would submit that the petitioner-institutions’ right to run the educational institutions can be said to have been duly recognized by the Supreme Court in the matters of : (1) TMA Pai Vs. State of Karnataka; (2002) 8 SCC 481 . (2) P. A. Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; (2005) 6 SCC 537 . (3) Islamic Academy of Education and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others; (2003) 6 SCC 697 . It is their fundamental right to administer the educational institutions. Even if the scheme is formulated and the guidelines are laid down to address a social cause, simultaneously, the governments’ decision particularly as regards the manner of disbursement of the scholarship is certain to deprive and affect their right to seek reimbursement. It arbitrarily and unreasonably affects their right to run the educational institutes smoothly. The learned advocates would submit that on the one hand the Guidelines mandate the institutes not to refuse admission to a student of Scheduled Caste category on the ground of payment of fees but simultaneously they are not keen to protect the interest of the institutions and their right to get the reimbursement of the tuition fees, hostel fees and necessary admissible charges. 5. The learned advocates would point out that as far as the 40% share to be borne by the State Government, there is no grievance inasmuch as even the government resolution dated 17.03.2022, in spite of the Guidelines having been adopted by it, has resolved that the share of the institutions to be credited directly to their account and does not require it to be first credited in the account of the students. They would submit that when the State Government does not find any impediment in reimbursing the institutions directly, the stand of the Union Government requiring its 60% share to be disbursed directly in the students’ account, leaving the institutions at their mercy, is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. The guidelines do not take any precaution to protect the petitioners’ interest. There is no answer as to how the petitioners could recover the money if the students complete the education or leave the institution for whatever reason. Even the mechanism provided in clause no. 20 of the Guidelines, to redress the grievances is only student-centric. No mechanism has been provided to redress the grievances of the institutions. They would, therefore, submit that the clause nos. 11.1 and 11. 2 of the Guidelines are to the detriment of the petitioners’ interest and are arbitrary and unreasonable and may be struck down. 6. The learned senior advocate Mr. Khandeparkar for the Union of India submits at the outset that it is a question of policy as to in what manner the scholarship is to be distributed to the students. The mechanism provided for disbursement of the scholarship amounts is also a matter of policy. It seeks to protect the interest of the students so that the scholarship money is directly credited to their account. The Guidelines expressly mandate the institutions to cause the students to submit application on the day of admission itself and also requires them to have an undertaking from the students that they would transfer the amount in respect of tuition fees and other admissible fees to the institution, within a week of the amounts are credited to their account. Mr. Khandeparkar would submit that the Guidelines are applicable across the country and not State specific. Having some experience regarding fraudulent claims, the clauses seek to seal the loopholes. It is a matter of public money which cannot be allowed to be siphoned off. 7. He would further submit that the petitioners have approached the Court without there being any actual cause. It is only on the basis of hypothesis that apprehension is being entertained by the petitioners that they will not be able to recover their dues from the students once they leave the institutions. Even if it is assumed that there could be such an eventuality, those would be exceptional cases. It is only on the basis of hypothesis that apprehension is being entertained by the petitioners that they will not be able to recover their dues from the students once they leave the institutions. Even if it is assumed that there could be such an eventuality, those would be exceptional cases. It is merely because of such hypothesis that the clauses are being now impugned. No cause of action has arisen. If it is a matter of policy which is applicable across the country, there is no reason to castigate it as either being discriminatory or arbitrary and unreasonable. The clauses are not aimed at obstructing the fundamental rights of the petitioner-institutions and are only aimed at providing for a smooth mechanism for disbursement of scholarship and even seeks to protect the petitioners interest by providing that the students should submit an undertaking and further providing for the time line for putting up the claims for disbursement of scholarship through the MahaDBT portal. 8. Having heard both the sides and having perused the papers we need not emphasize the fact that the dispute is more in the matter of implementation of the centrally sponsored scheme to be implemented through the State Government, rather than affecting any fundamental right. Per se, the impugned clauses merely seek to provide for a mechanism for disbursement of scholarship. 9. The statements in the affidavit in reply filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in Writ Petition No. 3797/2022 elaborately point out the instances as to how the previous practice of transferring the institutions’ share to their account directly had several loopholes, which were revealed in the audits undertaken in the State of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Uttarakhand. It has also been mentioned that several irregularities were noticed where scholarship was reimbursed without scrutiny of the applications of the eligible institutions and eligible students, several institutes and students were even non existent still were able to siphon the money. There were instances of double payments, as well. 10. All these specific averments in the affidavit in reply have gone without any demur. There were instances of double payments, as well. 10. All these specific averments in the affidavit in reply have gone without any demur. Since it is a matter of public money and when the clauses under challenge have been inserted with the object of sealing the loopholes and avoiding irregularities which had earlier led to siphoning of public money, one wonders as to how the clauses can be assailed on the ground of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. If it is a matter of public money, if the clauses merely seek to prevent such public money being siphoned off and more particularly when it is a guideline which operates across the country, we cannot accept the stand of the petitioners that the clauses are arbitrary and unreasonable. 11. The affidavit in reply also in detail lays down as to how the Guidelines and particularly the mechanism for disbursement would work, in following manner : S.N. Activity Ownership i. States will share all the submitted and final verified data to the NSP Portal State ii. State will enroll their Digital Signature Certificate State iii NSP will share the beneficiary file to PFMS for A/C validation NSP iv. NSP will get response from PFMS PFMS v. Date if any rejected by PFMS will go back to State for correction NSP vi. NSP will check Red Flag data and if found any, it would be rejected and send back to State for necessary correction NSP & Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment (MoSJE). vii. After separating the Red Flag data, NSP will create payment file with amount calculation and send to state of DST. NSP viii. State will digitally sign the payment file and send back to NSP State ix Process for finance concurrence MoSJE x Process for admin approval of Minister of Social Justice & Empowerment after concurrence MoSJE xi. Authorized officer of the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment will Digitally Sign the Payment file received from State Govt. on NSP & send it to PFMS for disbursement as per the laid down procedure. NSP & MoSJE One cannot ignore the fact that it is a policy matter. The Union has taken over a 60% burden. It cannot be expected to be not careful enough or vigilant in the manner in which the public money is to be disbursed. 12. NSP & MoSJE One cannot ignore the fact that it is a policy matter. The Union has taken over a 60% burden. It cannot be expected to be not careful enough or vigilant in the manner in which the public money is to be disbursed. 12. Obviously, there cannot be any debate as far as the right of the petitioner-institutions to seek reimbursement. If the Union and the State Governments require them to admit the Scheduled Caste students without charging any fees, a co-relative obligation would exist on the part of these governments and in favour of the petitioners, to protect the latters’ interest. It would be obligatory on the part of the State to reimburse these institutions. However, in the process of securing the public money, if the Guidelines seek to regulate the manner of disbursement, merely because hypothetically there could be instances of students in whose account the scholarship is transferred, failing to abide by the undertakings given by them, which could be rare or exceptional instances, the general policy of providing the modalities for disbursement cannot be questioned on the ground of arbitrariness. 13. If such is the state of affairs, when the Clauses 11.1 and 11.2 which are in the nature of shift in the policy which was prevalent till then, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable much less aimed at obstructing the rights of petitioners institutions. 14. One cannot foresee any reason why the institutions like the petitioners would be apprehensive but for the fact that the scholarships are not released in time and which eventually has the potential of creating a problem for the institutions to seek reimbursement, as in the meanwhile, students may pass out or leave the institutions. As has been rightly submitted by Mr. Khandeparkar, if the Guidelines also lay down the time schedule, if that is followed religiously, may not be with a clockwise precision, there would be no occasion for any institution to raise a grievance. 15. Indeed in Writ Petition No. 4675/2022, there is a pleading quoting the instances where some students have left the institution without reimbursing the institute from and out of the scholarship amount. 15. Indeed in Writ Petition No. 4675/2022, there is a pleading quoting the instances where some students have left the institution without reimbursing the institute from and out of the scholarship amount. It appears that in respect of three students, the matter was reported to the District Social Welfare Officer, Beed, who, in turn issued notices to the defaulting students on 14.02.2022 (Exhibit ‘G’ collectively in that petition). It was expressly brought to the notice of these three students that in spite of the entire amount having been credited to their accounts, they had not transferred the component to which the institute was entitled to and putting them to notice that appropriate legal action would be initiated if they failed to make amends. However, as is observed herein above these would be exceptional instances which cannot be taken as a ground to invoke the powers and the limited jurisdiction available to this Court in the matters of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to state that institute would have every right to claim reimbursement, since it had extended the benefit to the students because of the policy of the government. 16. This Court seems to have faced with a similar situation in the matter of Sinhgad Technical Education Society Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 408/2018 with connected matters disposed of by the order dated 04.05.2018 (Principal Seat). Though the facts to some extent were different, in our considered view, the following observations therein would aptly describe and would squarely apply even to the matters in hand: “2. As per the earlier policy which was followed by the State Government, initially the amount of Scholarship and Fees which was payable on account of admission of reserved category candidates was paid by the State Government to the institution directly. However, it was noticed by the State Government that some bogus students were also enrolled and resultantly the amount which was meant for the beneficiary students was being misappropriated by the institution. As such the Government had changed the policy thereby monitoring for crediting the amount directly into the account of the concerned beneficiary student. 3. However, it was noticed by the State Government that some bogus students were also enrolled and resultantly the amount which was meant for the beneficiary students was being misappropriated by the institution. As such the Government had changed the policy thereby monitoring for crediting the amount directly into the account of the concerned beneficiary student. 3. However, it is to be noted that though the State Government had prescribed a time schedule to make the payment within the prescribed period, for the variety of reasons the State itself could not adhere to the said timetable, resultantly now even the present academic session is over. We had therefore directed by order dated 16th April 2018 and observed that in view of this peculiar situation, if the amount is directly credited in the account of the student and if such student for one or other reason does not continue in the institution where he/she has undertaken the course, the management will be helpless to recover the fees from the said student. In the order dated 16th April 2018, we have also taken into consideration that various institutions including some of the petitioner, on account of non-receipts of the Scholarship amount on time, have not been in a position to pay the salaries of the staff. 4. We have therefore observed that since the State Government itself had created such a chaotic situation, the State Government itself should find out solution and come out of this situation. We have observed that only on account of the policy of the State Government that the candidate belonging to reserved category are admitted in the institution, on an assurance that the fess will be reimbursed by the State Government. We had observed that the institutions are put in a difficult situation on account of the policies of the State Government or because of the erroneous implementation there.” Of course, those were the matters wherein, the technical colleges being run by the managements were challenging the decision to put their respective colleges in “no admission category” for the only reason that the institutions were unable to pay the salaries for want of reimbursement of the scholarship money by the State Government. However, the fact remains that the genesis of the dispute lies in the fact that for whatever reason the Governments are unable to follow the time schedule and are unable to release the scholarships in the accounts promptly as is expected by the Guidelines. But then it is a matter of practical difficulty in operation of the scheme and cannot bother us so as to persuade us to invoke the writ jurisdiction for its implementation. We are making these observations having realised the fact that the whole dispute revolves around the fact that the governments fail to follow the Guidelines to the extent of making timely payments. If that happens in the timely manner there would be no occasion for the institutions to even entertain any apprehension. 17. Be that as it may, the impugned clauses which are in the nature of shift in the policy and are promoted by the shortcomings and the irregularities specifically noted and mentioned in the affidavit in reply, the clauses cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable and cannot be said to be affecting the fundamental rights of the petitioner-institutions guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, in substance, the petitions fail and are liable to be dismissed. 19. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the respondent No.1 Union had deposited demand drafts in this Court. The details of the institutions and the students find place in the affidavit in reply filed in Writ Petition No. 3797/2022. Civil Applications have been pending in some of these petitions seeking permission to withdraw the demand drafts. However, admittedly, those were deposited long back and have expired. Mr. Khandeparkar, on instructions, submitted that the respondent no.1 would renew the demand drafts so that the respective petitioners-institutions can be allowed to withdraw those demand drafts and realize them. The request of Mr. Khandeparkar being innocuous deserves to be accepted. 20. The Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, the respondent no. 1 shall deposit fresh demand drafts within four weeks, in the name and for the amounts as detailed in annexure-I and annexure-II to the affidavit in reply dated 13.12.2022 filed in Writ Petition No. 3797/2022. The petitioners, whose names appear in those annexures shall be entitled to withdraw the demand drafts. 21. All the pending Civil Applications are disposed of. 22. Rule is discharged.