Allowed

Hariyala Rajasthan Gaushala Vikash Sansthan v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Apr 2024CW/4199/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order withdrawing financial sanction granted to a Gaushala. The Court held that since the earlier inspection report was not contradicted, the sanction could not be withdrawn without hearing the petitioner, violating natural justice. The grant was directed to be disbursed within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 14.02.2024 quashed. Respondents directed to disburse withheld grants within 8 weeks.

Hariyala Rajasthan Gaushala Vikash Sansthan Vs the State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:18189]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4199/2024

¶4

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

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Department Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur

¶8

The Director, Gopalan- Directorate, Government Of Rajasthan, Opposite Police Headquarter, Tonk Road, Jaipur

¶9

The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Pashupalan Bhawan, Near Air Force Circle Jaisalmer

¶10

The District Collector, Jaisalmer

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ankur Mathur
	Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri Mr. Ramesh Kumar Suthar
For Respondent(s)	: Dr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG with Mr. Piyush Bhandari

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶14

Order

¶15

25/04/2024

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14.02.2024 (Annex.7) passed by the respondents, whereby, the grant of financial sanction made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 16.01.2024 has been withdrawn/withheld.

[2024:RJ-JD:18189]

[CW-4199/2024]

(2 of 6)

Briefly noted the facts in the writ petition are that the petitioner, being a registered society under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, is running a Gaushala at Village Jesurana of District Jaisalmer, wherein, 525 bovine animals are being kept. On 08.02.2021, the State Government issued guidelines for grant of financial assistance to the Gaushala running in the periphery of the State of Rajasthan. In pursuance of the guidelines dated 08.02.2021, the petitioner- Gaushala applied for financial assistance as per the policy. The Gaushala of the petitioner was inspected by Inspectors of the respondent-department by conducting a physical verification on 25.09.2023 and a report was prepared which is placed on record as Annex.4. As per Annex.4, the number of bovine animals found in the Gaushala was noted as 498. Based on the inspection report dated 25.09.2023, requisite financial sanction was ordered by the respondents, however, the same was not paid to the petitioner. Thus, a communication dated 30.10.2023 was made by the respondent No.2-Director, GopalanDirectorate, Govt. of Rajasthan directing all the District Joint Directors for grant of financial assistance. In pursuance of the communication dated 30.10.2023, the respondents vide order dated 16.01.2024, issued an administrative / financial sanction for grant of financial assistance to the petitioner, however, the same was withdrawn / withheld. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite there being an administrative / financial sanction for granting financial assistance to the petitioner- Gaushala in accordance with the policy / guideline framed by the State, the same is not being paid.

[2024:RJ-JD:18189]

[CW-4199/2024]

(3 of 6)

Learned counsel submits that on the strength of Annex.7 dated 14.02.2024, the financial grant is being denied to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel also submits that even as per the order dated 14.02.2024, the inspection is said to have been conducted on 07.02.2024 and certain discrepancies / shortage of bovine animals have been reported and on the basis of the inspection conducted, the sanction already granted in favour of the petitioner is being denied.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order dated 14.02.2024 is being implemented with retrospective effect despite there being no material available on record which shows that the inspection report submitted by earlier inspectors on 25.09.2023 is false and incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the order dated 14.02.2024 is being passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to grant financial assistance to the petitioner- Gaushala which has already been sanctioned by the respondents vide order dated 16.01.2024.

¶28

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that number of complaints have been received by the respondents with respect to the financial grants being made to the Gaushalas including that of the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the Government money cannot be disbursed for a cause which is not in existence at the ground level. He submits that the financial assistance is rightly being denied to them as incorrect and wrong

[2024:RJ-JD:18189]

[CW-4199/2024]

(4 of 6)

facts with respect to the number of bovine animals present in the Gaushala were submitted. He also submits that on the surprise inspection conducted by the respondents on 07.02.2024, the number of bovine animals were found, far less than the number for which the financial assistance is being asked for, therefore, the respondent-authorities have rightly withheld the financial assistance granted to the petitioner and other similarly situated Gaushalas. Learned Additional Advocate General, therefore, submits that the action of the respondents is absolutely in accordance with law, however, he very fairly submits that no show-cause notice / opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the order impugned dated 14.02.2024. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶33

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the order impugned dated 14.02.2024. 9. As far as the establishment of Gaushala of the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioner is a registered society operating the Gaushala in the State of Rajasthan. The financial assistance was extended to the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines dated 08.02.2021 framed by the State Government. It is true that as per the policy, the petitioner is entitled to the financial assistance on the number of bovine animals kept in the Gaushala . In the present case, since the inspection report dated 25.09.2023 shows that there were 498 bovine animals, therefore, based on that inspection report, the financial assistance has been sanctioned by the State Government vide sanction letter dated 16.01.2024. In the opinion of this Court,

[2024:RJ-JD:18189]

[CW-4199/2024]

(5 of 6)

unless any material contradicting the report dated 25.09.2023 is brought on record, there is no reason to disbelieve that on the date of inspection conducted by the Inspectors of respondent department, 498 bovine animals were not found.

¶38

On a pointed query raised by this Court to learned Additional Advocate General, he fairly submitted that there is nothing on record to contradict the report dated 25.09.2023.

¶39

Thus, this Court is of the view that the surprise inspection conducted by the respondents on 07.02.2024 can certainly form the basis for the State Government to deny further grants in future and even to take appropriate action against the present petitioner in accordance with the rules, but the financial sanction issued by the respondent-State Government based on the report dated 25.09.2023 cannot be denied. Since no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the order dated 14.02.2024, therefore, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and thus, is not sustainable in the eye of law. However, the State Government will be free to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate order after complying with the principles of natural justice by giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶40

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the Director, Gopalan-Directorate, Govt. of Rajasthan is quashed and set-aside and the respondents are directed to disburse the withheld grants sanctioned in favour of

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:18189]

[CW-4199/2024]

the petitioner prior to the surprise inspection dated 07.02.2024 at the earliest, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from today.

¶45

For denying the benefits to the petitioner after the surprise inspection dated 07.02.2024, the respondents may proceed by passing a speaking order after giving an appropriate show cause notice / opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if desirable, strictly in accordance with law.

¶46

Stay petition as well as other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶47

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶48

21-Arun P/-

Hariyala Rajasthan Gaushala Vikash Sansthan v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariyala Rajasthan Gaushala Vikash Sansthan v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Singh Alias Govind Singh Vs Union of India

Municipal Board,Mount Abu and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Sampati Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Gaffar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh @ Vikky Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakha Ram Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan