Mayurakshi Siksha Aur Vikas ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4621 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4621 Raj
Judgement Date : 15 May, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mayurakshi Siksha Aur Vikas ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through ... on 15 May, 2023

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6777/2023

Mayurakshi Siksha Aur Vikas Sansthan, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan Being Run By Society Mayurakshi Siksha Avam Vikas Sansthan, Magra Punjala, Jodhpur Through Its Secretary Atul Sankhla S/o Sh. Sanwal Singh Sankhla, Aged 39 Years, R/o Magra Punjla, Jodhpur (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)          :     Ms. Swati Shekhar
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

15/05/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Institution 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 :-

(2 of 3) [CW-6777/2023]

"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 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."

(3 of 3) [CW-6777/2023]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Institution submits that it

is a mockery of the running institution as in the present case, the

petitioner-Institution was granted NOC to run the diploma course

in Veterinary Science way back in the year 2003 as per the then

policy and it has been fairly running the same without any issues.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Institution 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.

4. Issue notice to the respondents.

5. Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG is directed to accept notice on