The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court directed the State Government to maintain status quo with regards to the projects, concerning which work orders have already been issued while hearing a writ petition filed by Zilla Parishad member and NCP leader Salil Anil Deshmukh. The division bench of Justices Rohit Deo and Vrushali Joshi granted interim relief, on the sidelines of the interim orders already passed by the Bombay High Court at its principal seat and at the Aurangabad Bench. The grievance of petitioner was that with the change in the ruling dispensation on June, 2022, the development works in the constituencies, at the State Assembly and Zilla Parishad levels are either stayed or cancelled where the elected representative is aligning with the Opposition.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted in the court that in similar matters, interim orders are passed at Aurangabad, the Principal Bench and at Nagpur. Illustrative reference was made to the order dated February 23, 2023 in writ petition filed by Ex-Minister and Saoner MLA Sunil Kedar. The court stated in the order that considering that interim relief is granted in similar matters, we direct that the respondents shall maintain status quo as regards the projects, concerning which work orders have already been issued.

With reference to the projects, where the tender process is yet not completed, though the tenders have been floated and bids have been received from the bidders, there would not be cancellation of such tenders, without the leave of the court. Adv R R Dawda appeared for the petitioner. A writ petition on the same lines was filed by Ex-Minister Sunil Kedar. The grievance of Kedar was that with change in the ruling dispensation and formation of the present Government on July 30, 2022, a blanket order of stay to the development works was issued by the Government.

The petitioner also contends that the blanket order of stay on the development works was modified, and a pick and choose policy was adopted whereby and where-under the stay on the development works in the constituencies represented either by the members of the ruling dispensation or those leaning towards ruling dispensation is vacated while stay on development works in the constituencies represented by the Opposition continues.

Kedar also contended that the cherry-picking approach, and the discrimination between the constituencies represented by the members of the ruling dispensation and the members of the Opposition is irrational and falls foul of constitutional philosophy.