The petition was based on the claim that the Trust had adhered to all the necessary requirements outlined in a Government Resolution (GR) dated January 25, 2019, along with subsequent orders from the Collector of Nashik. The petitioner sought a total of Rs. 1,19,35,750 for the duration of various fodder camps conducted between June and July 2019, asserting that these grants should be disbursed at rates of Rs. 50 per day for small animals and Rs. 100 for larger ones.

Despite numerous requests for payment, the petitioner contended that the government had not released the owed funds, prompting the legal challenge.

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Joglekar, emphasized that all relevant documentation, including attendance records and certifications from the Tahsildar, supported their claim for the grants. They argued that the government’s delayed payment and claims of non-compliance were unfair and arbitrary, given that the Tahsildar had certified the animal numbers at the camps.

Mr. Joglekar cited past judgments to support the notion that the state must act fairly in contractual matters, asserting that the government’s refusal to disburse funds was unjustified.

In contrast, the Respondents, represented by Additional Government Pleader Mr. Patel, contended that there were serious discrepancies regarding the claims made by the petitioner. They argued that many alleged camps were not conducted under the government scheme but were part of the Trust’s charitable activities. The government maintained that it had already paid Rs. 1,27,89,493, and the remaining claims were inflated and lacked proper documentation.

Mr. Patel emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the facts, arguing that the matter was not suitable for summary judgment and should instead be resolved in a civil suit.

Upon reviewing the extensive documentation and arguments presented by both sides, the court determined that significant disputed factual questions existed. It concluded that the matter involved complexities that could not be adequately addressed within the summary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court noted that while the petitioner had received a substantial amount in grants, the remaining claims involved serious disputes requiring a full trial for resolution. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner the option to pursue a civil suit or another appropriate legal remedy.

The court also acknowledged the time the petition had spent pending in court, advising that if a suit were filed within three months, the civil court should consider the duration of the petition in its proceedings.

This decision underscores the judiciary's stance on the necessity for thorough factual examination in disputes over financial claims, particularly involving government contracts and grants, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and compliance with established procedures.