Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sati Jabde Veterinary Compounder ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7027/2023
Sati Jabde Veterinary Compounder Training Institute, Tatarpur,
Mundawar, Alwar Through Principal Ashok Kumar Singh S/o Ram
Singh, Age 69 Years, R/o 104, Palm Court Apartment,malviya
Nagar, Alwar.
----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. R.J. Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
18/05/2023
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 :-
"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
(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 11:59:23 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-7027/2023]
Commissioner of Income Tax v Vatika Township 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."
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
(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 11:59:23 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-7027/2023]
in Veterinary Science way back in the year 2005 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
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 alongwith SBCWP
No.5633/2023.
8. In the meanwhile, effect and operation of the impugned
policy of 2022 (Annex.2), qua the petitioner-Institution, shall
remain stayed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
306-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
