Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
K.M.B. Adarsh Vidhya Mandir vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 May, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6578/2023
K.m.b. Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Meena Bass (Semli), Tehsil Nagar
Bharatpur Being Run By Society K.m.b. Adarsh Vidhya Mandir
Samiti, Meenawas Through Its Secretary Ramswaroop Meena
S/o Moolarammeena, Aged About 76 Years, R/o Village
Lodhahedi, Post Semli, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Member,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Government Of Rajasthan, Pashudhan Bhawan Tonk
Road, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences,
Bikaner Through Its Registrar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CS Kotwani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AK Gaur, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 10/05/2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Excise Commissioner Kottayam & Ors. Vs. Esthappan Cherian & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.5815/2009, decided on 06.09.2021, the relevant portion of which reads as under :-
(Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 11:43:08 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-6578/2023] "14. There is profusion of judicial authority on the proposition that a rule or law cannot be construed as retrospective unless it expresses a clear or manifest intention, to the contrary. In Commissioner of Income Tax v Vatika Township4 this court, speaking through a Constitution Bench, observed as follows:
"31. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not f.no. 1 (2015) 1 SCC 1 tomorrow's backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bed rock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit : law looks forward not backward. As was observed in Phillips vs. Eyre[3], a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law.
32. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of 'fairness', which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in the decision reported in L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co.Ltd[4]. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because (Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 11:43:08 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-6578/2023] aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a mockery of the running institution as in the present case, the petitioner was granted NOC to run the diploma course in Veterinary Science way back in the year 2012 as per the then policy and it has been fairly running the same without any issues.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that such change in the policy cannot be given a retrospective effect and could at best be prospectively applied upon the new institutions.
Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG is directed to accept notice on behalf of the respondents, which he accepts and seeks some time to complete his instructions.
Time prayed for is allowed.
List the matter after four weeks.
In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of the impugned policy of 2022 (Annex.6) shall remain stayed qua the present petitioner.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J c/2-3-Sudheer/-
(Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 11:43:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)