Bharat Rai vs Union Of India & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4064 Del

        *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                           Date of Decision: 10.09.2013

+                              W.P.(C) 3537/2010

BHARAT RAI                                             .... Petitioner
                          Through:    Mr. Ashutosh Thakur &
                                      Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Advs.

                                       versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                    ..... Respondents
              Through:                Mr. Vikram Aditya Narayan, Adv. for
                                      Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC for R-1 & 3.
                                      Mr. B.S. Mor & Mr. Nayyar K., Advs.
                                      for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                                     JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The respondents 1 & 3 do not wish to file any counter affidavit. Counter affidavit of respondent No.2 is already on record. Heard.

The petitioner before this Court is the Founder-President of a Society called International Society for Conservation of Natural Resources. On 10.12.2004 Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short „ICAR‟) applied for grant of financial assistance for holding an International Symposium on „Integrated Management of Fungal Disease‟ (IMF). In anticipation of the said approval, the Society held the proposed seminar on 24.2.2005. The request of the Society for grant of financial assistance was considered by the ICAR in the meeting of its Standing Committee held on 21.2.2005 and it was decided to release the grant

subject inter alia to the condition that the Society would produce clearance of the Nodal as well as Ministry of External /Home Affairs. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid decision taken by the Standing Committee the amount of the financial grant has not been released to the Society.

2. Admittedly the application for release of the grant was submitted by the Society of which the petitioner claims to be the Founder-President and the petitioner himself was not the applicant. Therefore, the grievance with respect to non-release of the grant ought to have been ventilated by the said Society and not by the petitioner as an individual.

3. Paras 4 (vi) & (xii) of the Rules and Guidelines framed by the ICAR with respect to grant of financial assistance for holding international symposiums/seminars read as under:

"4(vi) For Holding International Seminars/Symposia/Conformers it is mandatory on part of the Organising Societies/Bodies to obtain prior approval of the nodal ministry as well as Ministry of Home/External Affairs. No request for assistance for International Seminars shall be entertained before such approval is granted."

"4 (xii) the Societies/Associations should plan their International Symposium/Seminars/Conformers well in advance and submit their proposal to the council at least 18 months before scheduled date."

It would, thus, be seen that in terms of the applicable guidelines, the application for release of grant from ICAR was required to be submitted eighteen (18) months before the scheduled date. The symposium, according to the petitioner, was held on 24.2.2005. The application for grant, however, was submitted only on 10.12.2004, i.e.,

less than three (3) months before the scheduled date of the symposium. More importantly, it was mandatory under the rules to produce approval from the concerned Ministry, which, in this case would be the Department of Agriculture Research and Education in the Ministry of Agriculture. However, though the petitioner Society obtained clearance from the Ministry of External /Home Affairs from political angle, no approval from the Department of Agriculture Research and Education, Ministry of Agriculture was obtained.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the letter dated 5.11.2007 sent to them by the Department of Agriculture Research & Education, seeking list of international delegates who participated in the conference. The learned counsel submits that the requisite information was duly supplied to the Department but despite that, no approval was granted. As noted earlier the Society, in terms of the guidelines was required to submit approval from the concerned Department before the amount of the grant could be even sanctioned to the Society. That admittedly was not done. Despite that ICAR took up the matter and granted ex post facto approval for release of grant and agreed to the same subject to the approval from the concerned Department of the Government.

5. A perusal of the writ petition would show that the only relief claimed by the petitioner is a direction to respondent No.2-ICAR to release the sanctioned amount to the petitioner. There is no prayer made in the writ petition for a direction to the Union of India to accord ex post facto approval in terms of the guidelines framed by ICAR for sanction and release of such grant. In the absence of any relief being sought against the Union of India no direction to the Government can be issued

for issue of the approval in terms of the guidelines framed by the ICAR. In the absence of approval from the Government of India, no direction can be issued to ICAR to release the amount of grant since any such direction would be in the direct contravention of the guidelines framed in this regard.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

No orders as to costs.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013                                       V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh