Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shreeji Animal Husbandry ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6865/2023
Shreeji Animal Husbandry Institute, Nathdwara Through Director
Ashutosh Audichya S/o Shri Yugal Kishore, Age 52 Years, R/o
Nathuvas, Nathdwara District Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Pashudhan Bhawan, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Science,
Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RJ Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
17/05/2023
1. 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 :-
"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:
(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 10:45:14 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-6865/2023]
"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."
(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 10:45:14 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-6865/2023]
2. 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 2011 as per the then
policy and it has been fairly running the same without any issues.
3. 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.
4. Issue notice to the respondents.
5. 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.
6. Time prayed for is allowed.
7. List the matter after four weeks.
8. In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of the impugned
policy of 2022 (Annex.2) shall remain stayed qua the present
petitioner.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
236-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
