[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Deen Mohammed Goshala on 1 December, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1075/2024
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalanbhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Jaisan Kadri Gopal Go Seva Sansthan, Village Bhagu Ka Gaoun,
Distrtict Jaisalmer Through The President Ramtulla Khan S/o
Jumme Khan.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1117/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Direcotr, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalanbhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Mohammed Goshala, Sujiyo Ki Dhani, Chandan, District
Jaisalmer Through Its President Bachal Khan S/o Khannu Khan,
Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village Sojia, Chandan, Tehsil And
District Jaisalmer.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1134/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 09:00:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (2 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalan Bhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Rasdi Goushala, Village Chhatrel, District Jaisalmer Through The
President Rane Khan S/o Late Davad Khan, Aged About 55
Years.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1151/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalan Bhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Ak Welfare Society Goushala, Choudhariya, Post Kathodi, Tehsil
Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer Through Its President Arnab Khan S/
o Shri Kite Khan Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Choudhariya
Kathodi, Tehsil Jaisalmer.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1155/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, , Through The Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 09:00:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (3 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalanbhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Adrim Girodi Goushala Chhatrail Dakshini, Chhatrail, Post
Chhatrail, Tehsil Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer Through Its
President Adhrim Khan S/o Achar Khan, Aged About 44 Years R/
o Village Chhatrail, Tehsil Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer..
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1200/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalanbhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Mehar Goshala, Through Its Secretary Arab Khan S/o Ibrahim
Khan, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Musalman Pada, Village
Nimba, Post Numba, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1212/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalanbhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 09:00:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (4 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
----Appellants
Versus
Sureshah Goshala, Through Its Secretary Mohammad Murad S/o
Bariyam Khan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Jina Jesurana
Post Hamira, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1213/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalanbhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Gul Roshan Sansthan Goshala, Through Its Secretary Iqbal Khan
S/o Rayadhan Khan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Jesurana,
Post Hamira, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1218/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalanbhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Piru Khan Goshala Vikas Sansthan, Through Its Secretory Bali
Mohammad S/o Piru Khan, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of
Village Jesurana, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 09:00:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (5 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1224/2024
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalan Bhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
M. M. Goshala Sansthan, Mehro Ki Dhani, Post Kunda, Tehsil
Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer Through Its President Shasdeen
Khan S/o Mahendra Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Mehro Ki
Dhani, Post Kunda, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 36/2025
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalan Bhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Deen Mohammed Goshala, Sujiyo Ki Dhani, Chandan, Distt.
Jaisalmer Through Its President Noore Khan S/o Dine Khan,
Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Sujiyo Ki Dhani, Chandan
Tehsil And Distt. Jaisalmer.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 168/2025
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 09:00:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (6 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Government Of
Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Pashupalan Bhawan, Near Air Force Circle, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Hariyala Rajasthan Gaushala Vikash Sansthan, Jesurana
(Kunjalari) District Jaisalmer Through The Secretary Abdul Khan
S/o Meer Khan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Jesurana,
Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, Additional
Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Ravindra Jala and Mr. Deepak Suthar,
Advocates
Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, Additional
Advocate General,
Mr. Shanu Prajapat, Advocates
Mr. Arpit Samaria, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur, Advocate
Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi, Advocate
Mr. Manas Khatri, Advocate
Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit, Advocate
Mr. Ramesh Suthar, Advocate
Mr. Devang Devra, Advocate
Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 17.09.2025
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 17.09.2025
3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is
pronounced: Full judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 01.12.2025
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (7 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The present batch of Special Appeals (Writ) has been
preferred by the appellant-State and its authorities assailing
multiple orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various writ
petitions filed by different Gaushala/Goshala societies. For the
sake of convenience, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 168/2025 is treated
as the lead case, as the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed
therein, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4199/2024 titled "Hariyala
Rajasthan Gaushala Vikash Sansthan vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.", formed the foundational basis on which the other writ
petitions were subsequently allowed. The brief facts and the
challenge in the appeals are therefore being noted from the said
lead matter, and the remaining connected Special Appeals (D.B.
Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 1075/2024, 1117/2024, 1134/2024,
1151/2024, 1155/2024, 1200/2024, 1212/2024, 1213/2024,
1218/2024, 1224/2024, 36/2025) shall stand disposed of in
accordance with the decision rendered herein.
1.1. The present Special Appeal No. 168/2025 has been preferred
claiming the following relief:
" It is therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed
and;
(i) The impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4199/2024
(Hariyala Rajasthan Gaushala Vikash Sansthan vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) may kindly be quashed and set aside
consequential thereof the writ petition filed by the respondent/
writ petitioner may kindly be dismissed with costs.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (8 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
(ii) Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case
may kindly be granted.
(iii) Cost of the present appeal may kindly be awarded in
favour of the appellants."
2. Before entering into the factual matrix of this case this Court
notes that bovine protection and welfare constitute an integral
component of the State's public policy, particularly in the arid and
ecologically vulnerable region of Western Rajasthan, where cattle
rearing and allied activities form a significant part of the rural
economy. Recognising the indispensable role played by Gaushalas
in providing shelter, nutrition and medical care to stray,
abandoned and infirm bovine animals, the State Government
issued guidelines dated 08.02.2021 to extend financial assistance
to duly registered Gaushalas, proportionate to the number of
bovine animals maintained. The scheme is conceived as a welfare
measure aimed at ensuring the sustenance of bovine livestock and
strengthening institutional accountability. It is against this welfare-
oriented statutory and administrative backdrop that the present
controversy arises.
3. The brief facts, as emerging from the lead case, are that the
respondent-writ petitioner is a registered society running a
Gaushala at Village Jesurana, District Jaisalmer, and is maintaining
bovine animals eligible for financial assistance under the State
Government Guidelines dated 08.02.2021. Pursuant to these
guidelines, a physical inspection of the Gaushala was conducted
by the Inspectors of the Animal Husbandry Department on
25.09.2023, wherein 498 bovine animals were found and the
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (9 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
inspection report was duly forwarded to the competent authority.
On the strength of this verified inspection report, an
administrative and financial sanction dated 16.01.2024 was issued
by the Department granting financial assistance to the
respondent-Gaushala. However, before the sanctioned amount
could be released, the Director, Gopalan-Directorate, issued an
order dated 14.02.2024 withdrawing the sanctioned grant on the
basis of a subsequent surprise inspection said to have been
conducted on 07.02.2024, wherein a lesser number of bovine
animals were allegedly found. The said withdrawal was made
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
without placing any material on record to contradict the earlier
inspection report dated 25.09.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner approached the Hon'ble Single Judge by way of S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 4199/2024, in which the learned Single
Judge, vide order dated 25.04.2024, quashed the order dated
14.02.2024 and directed disbursal of the sanctioned financial
assistance, leaving it open to the State to proceed afresh in
accordance with law for future periods. The present Special
Appeals have been preferred against the said judgment.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. S.S. Ladrecha,
Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Ravindra Jala and Mr.
Deepak Suthar & Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, Additional Advocate
General, Mr. Shanu Prajapat, Mr. Arpit Samaria, appearing on
behalf of the appellants, assailed the impugned order dated
25.04.2024 and submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed
to appreciate the scheme, the guidelines and the factual matrix in
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (10 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
their correct perspective, resulting in an unwarranted interference
with a bona fide administrative decision taken to safeguard public
revenue.
4.1. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the
Gopalan Department issued detailed guidelines, inter alia on
21.08.2023 for the financial year 2023-24, wherein the Director,
Gopalan-Directorate, as also the District Joint Director, Animal
Husbandry Department, have been specifically empowered to
conduct surprise inspections of Gaushalas before disbursement of
financial assistance and even thereafter, so as to verify the actual
number of bovine animals and to ensure that the grants are not
released on the basis of inflated or incorrect figures. In exercise of
this power, a committee was constituted vide order dated
31.01.2024 and, pursuant thereto, a surprise inspection was
conducted in the respondent-Gaushala on 07.02.2024.
4.2 Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that
during the surprise inspection dated 07.02.2024, grave
irregularities were noticed. It was urged that, as against the
figures disclosed earlier for the purpose of grant, only a negligible
number of cattle were found on site and, in fact, the inspection
team noticed that there was no proper staff present, the Gaushala
was situated in the midst of agricultural fields with no abadi
nearby and no independent witness was available. The inspection
also revealed serious deficiencies with respect to tagging of bovine
animals and maintenance of records. It was contended that these
findings prima facie falsify the earlier position projected by the
respondent-Gaushala and gave rise to a serious doubt that the
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (11 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
number of bovines reflected at the time of the earlier inspection
had been manipulated to secure financial benefits.
4.3 Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that under the
applicable guidelines every bovine kept in a Gaushala is required
to be ear-tagged and the Gaushala is obligated to maintain a
proper register in the prescribed form (including Form No.5),
wherein each death, sale, donation or transport of a bovine is to
be contemporaneously recorded in red ink. However, at the time
of the surprise inspection dated 07.02.2024, the requisite
registers and records were either not found at all or were found to
be grossly deficient, thereby justifying the immediate stoppage of
the financial assistance until the matter was thoroughly verified. It
was urged that the Director, Gopalan-Directorate, therefore,
rightly issued the order dated 14.02.2024 directing the District
Collector, Jaisalmer, to withhold the grant sanctioned in favour of
the respondent-Gaushala.
4.4 Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the
impugned order dated 25.04.2024 proceeds on an erroneous
premise that there was "no material on record" to contradict the
inspection report dated 25.09.2023. It was argued that the
surprise inspection dated 07.02.2024, coupled with the absence of
proper records, non-compliance with tagging requirements and
the subsequent decision to initiate action against erring officials
who prepared the earlier inspection report, together constitute
cogent material raising serious doubt about the correctness and
reliability of the earlier inspection. In these circumstances, it was
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (12 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
contended, the Director could not have blindly acted upon the
earlier report and was duty-bound to arrest any potential leakage
of public funds.
4.5 Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that
the order dated 14.02.2024 is essentially an administrative step
taken in the larger public interest to protect the State exchequer,
and that no vested or indefeasible right accrues in favour of a
Gaushala merely on the issuance of a sanction letter, particularly
when serious discrepancies regarding the existence and number of
bovine animals are discovered before actual disbursement. It was
contended that in such circumstances, the requirement of a pre-
decisional personal hearing cannot be stretched to the extent of
compelling the State to release funds in the face of apparent fraud
or misrepresentation, and at the highest, any alleged infraction of
natural justice would be a curable irregularity.
4.6 Learned Additional Advocate General also pointted out that in
the writ petition, the respondent-writ petitioner did not even
specifically plead or demonstrate the actual number of bovine
animals present in the Gaushala on the date of surprise inspection
i.e. 07.02.2024. According to him, this omission itself indicates
that the petitioner was not in a position to assert that the number
of bovines then present matched the earlier figures disclosed for
the purpose of grant. It was further submitted that the guidelines
also contemplate recovery of amounts wrongly paid where serious
irregularities are detected, and thus, the action of the appellants
in withholding the grant and contemplating further proceedings is
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (13 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
in consonance with the scheme of the policy. On these broad
premises, learned Additional Advocate General prayed that the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge be quashed and the
writ petition be dismissed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-writ
petitioner supportted the impugned order and submitted that the
action of the appellants in withholding the sanctioned financial
assistance is wholly arbitrary, unsustainable in law and violative of
the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that
the petitioner is a duly registered Gaushala maintaining bovine
animals in accordance with the guidelines dated 08.02.2021, and
its entitlement is based on a valid physical verification carried out
by the Inspectors of the Animal Husbandry Department on
25.09.2023, in which 498 bovine animals were duly found and
recorded. On the strength of this report, the competent authority
issued a financial/administrative sanction dated 16.01.2024, which
created a legitimate expectation that the sanctioned amount
would be released unless the earlier inspection was shown to be
false on cogent and objective material.
5.1 Learned counsel submitted that the subsequent surprise
inspection dated 07.02.2024 cannot retrospectively nullify or
obliterate the earlier inspection report dated 25.09.2023, which
represented the factual position prevailing at the time of
consideration of the petitioner's claim. It was urged that the State
has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the
earlier inspection report was false, fabricated or incorrect; nor has
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (14 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
any finding been recorded by any competent authority to that
effect. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly
held that the sanctioned grant could not be denied on the basis of
an unverified and disputed subsequent inspection, particularly
when the appellants themselves conceded before the learned
Single Judge that no material contradicting the earlier report was
on record.
5.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the order dated
14.02.2024, whereby the sanctioned payment was withheld, was
passed without issuing any show cause notice, without furnishing
a copy of the surprise inspection report, and without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that this
omission goes to the root of the matter, as the petitioner had no
opportunity to clarify, rebut or explain the alleged deficiencies
noted in the surprise inspection. It is urged that non-observance
of natural justice not only vitiates the administrative decision but
also causes prejudice by depriving the Gaushala of essential
financial support required for the maintenance of bovine animals.
5.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the surprise inspection
dated 07.02.2024 was itself irregular, unannounced and carried
out without notice, and that the petitioner disputes the
correctness of the figures noted therein. It was contended that the
appellants cannot rely on such a disputed and untested inspection
report to withhold an already-sanctioned amount particularly when
the inspection was conducted at a different point in time and for a
subsequent phase of assistance. Learned counsel emphasised that
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (15 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
the respondent-Gaushala maintains proper records and tagging as
per the guidelines, and that any occasional absence of a staff
member or record at a particular moment cannot be elevated to
the level of a conclusive finding of manipulation or fraud.
5.4 Learned counsel finally submitted that the learned Single
Judge has adopted a fair, balanced and legally sound approach by
quashing the order dated 14.02.2024 solely to the extent that it
retrospectively affected an earlier sanctioned amount, while at the
same time protecting the interest of the State by permitting it to
proceed in accordance with law for any future period after
following due process and granting opportunity of hearing. It is
therefore prayed that the impugned order does not call for
interference in appellate jurisdiction.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused
the record, the impugned order dated 25.04.2024, the inspection
reports dated 25.09.2023 and 07.02.2024, the sanction letter
dated 16.01.2024, the withholding order dated 14.02.2024, and
the detailed Guidelines dated 21.08.2023 governing financial
assistance to Gaushalas .
6.1. This Court notes that the financial-assistance scheme of the
State is a welfare measure intended to ensure that bovine animals
actually maintained in Gaushalas receive nutrition, water, tagging
and medical care. The Guidelines dated 21.08.2023 lay down strict
compliance requirements, including:
• compulsory ear-tagging of every bovine animal
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (16 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
• mandatory maintenance of the Form-5 register, with
every death, sale, donation, and transport entry being
recorded in red ink
• uploading of animal-wise data on the INAPH Portal
and maintenance of records in prescribed Excel
formats
• power of the Director, Gopalan-Directorate, and
District Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, to conduct
inspections, including surprise inspections at any time
• power to stop, withhold or recover grants if
irregularities are detected
These provisions show that the scheme is not an unconditional
entitlement, but a conditional financial-support mechanism
controlled by strict compliance and verification.
6.2. This Court observes that pursuant to the authority conferred
by the 21.08.2023 Guidelines, the Director constituted a
committee which conducted a surprise inspection on 07.02.2024.
The inspection recorded serious irregularities, including:
• substantial mismatch between the number of bovine animals
claimed earlier and the number found during inspection;
• absence of tagged animals;
• non-availability of Form-5 register and other statutory
documents;
• absence of responsible staff at the Gaushala at the time of
inspection.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (17 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
These deficiencies go to the root of the eligibility of the petitioner
to receive public funds.
6.3. This Court finds that the sanction letter dated 16.01.2024
was premised on the earlier inspection of 25.09.2023. Once the
surprise inspection revealed material discrepancies before the
sanctioned amount was disbursed, the Director was well within his
statutory authority to withhold the release of the amount by
issuing the order dated 14.02.2024. The Guidelines, in light of the
whole scheme, empower the Director to verify the genuineness of
the figures and to halt disbursement until compliance is
established. Disbursement of public funds without such verification
would defeat the purpose of the regulatory framework.
6.4. This Court further finds that the learned Single Judge erred in
holding that the surprise inspection could not contradict the earlier
report of 25.09.2023. The surprise inspection is a statutory and
policy-mandated tool to verify continuing compliance, and its
findings constitute material evidence casting doubt on the
correctness of the earlier report. By holding that the earlier report
must prevail unless expressly disproved, the learned Single Judge
inadvertently nullified the verification powers expressly vested in
the Director.
6.5. This Court observes that the order dated 14.02.2024 is not a
punitive order but an administrative measure to withhold payment
pending verification. At this stage of financial scrutiny, a pre-
decisional personal hearing is not indispensable. Natural justice
would be mandatory only at the stage of a final adverse order,
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (18 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
such as cancellation, blacklisting or recovery. The learned Single
Judge erred in treating a preventive withholding measure as if it
were a penal action.
6.6. This Court finds that the scheme requires strict compliance,
transparent records, and continuous verification. The surprise
inspection revealed substantial irregularities, including absence of
essential records, untagged animals, and mismatch in bovine
count. In such circumstances, the appellants acted within their
statutory authority in withholding disbursement to protect the
exchequer. Directing the unconditional release of funds, despite
such discrepancies, undermines the very objectives of the
Guidelines and compromises the integrity of the public-funding
process.
6.7. This Court therefore holds that the appellants were justified in
withholding the sanctioned financial assistance dated 16.01.2024,
and the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the
order dated 14.02.2024 or in directing release of the withheld
amount. The impugned order suffers from an erroneous
appreciation of the scheme guidelines, the scope of administrative
discretion, and the effect of subsequent inspection.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion contained hereinabove,
this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated
25.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 4199/2024 cannot be sustained in law and on facts.
The appellants were fully justified in withholding the sanctioned
financial assistance pending verification, in exercise of the
statutory and policy powers vested in them.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49619-DB] (19 of 19) [SAW-1075/2024]
7.1. Accordingly, the present Special Appeals are allowed. The
impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge is quashed and set aside.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
77-SKant/-
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:33:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
