Calcutta High Court on Wednesday declined to interfere with the Bengal government’s decision to disburse a grant of Rs 10,000 each to 28,000 Durga Puja committees in the state, accepting its claim that the judiciary had no authority to scan the state’s expenditure under any head.

A public interest litigation challenging the largesse was disposed of by a division bench headed by acting Chief Justice Debasish Kargupta.

The PIL by two advocates challenged the decision to spend Rs 28 crore from the government’s coffers to “appease a particular community”.

“This court is primarily satisfied with the state government’s argument that the judiciary did not have the jurisdiction to interfere into the decision on its expenditure under any head and only the legislature has the authority to scan this issue,” the division bench, which also consisted of Justice Shampa Sarkar, said in the order.

With the high court disposing of the PIL, the government can proceed with its decision and give doles to the puja committees.

Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, who was representing the petitioners, said he would move the Supreme Court against the order.

On Tuesday, advocate-general Kishore Dutta had argued that the Supreme Court had ruled that only the legislature, not courts, had the authority to raise questions on expenditure incurred by governments under any head.

He said even taxpayers did not have the right to move courts challenging directives on government expenditures. “Only members of a legislative Assembly have the right to raise such questions on the floor of the House,” said Dutta.

The two advocates had moved the PIL on September 19, eight days after chief minister Mamata Banerjee had announced the grants.

When the matter came up for hearing before the division bench on October 5, Justice Kargupta expressed surprise over the government’s decision and issued an interim stay on its decision. The stay caused worries at Nabanna as the government struggled to find ways to handle the issue in case the verdict went against it.

During the hearing, the court asked the government several questions. The queries included whether the expenditure was justified against the backdrop of the financial crisis and whether similar grants were given to other communities during their festivals.

Instead of answering the questions, the government lawyers argued that the PIL was not maintainable as the court didn’t have any jurisdiction over the issue.

After the court’s order on Wednesday, a senior advocate said: “Before justifying maintainability of cases, courts

often make observations.

Since the observations are made in open courts, they reach the public through the media. After the disposal of the cases, like the one that was rejected on maintainability grounds on Wednesday, confusion prevails in the minds of the people because of the observations.”