BHARAT RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents 1 and 3 do not wish to file any counter affidavit. Counter affidavit of respondent No.2 is already on record. Heard.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the application for release of the grant was submitted by the Society of which the petitioner claims to be the Founder-President and the petitioner himself was not the applicant. Therefore, the grievance with respect to non-release of the grant ought to have been ventilated by the said Society and not by the petitioner as an individual.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the letter dated 5.11.2007 sent to them by the Department of Agriculture Research & Education, seeking list of international delegates who participated in the conference. The learned counsel submits that the requisite information was duly supplied to the Department but despite that, no approval was granted. As noted earlier the Society, in terms of the guidelines was required to submit approval from the concerned Department before the amount of the grant could be even sanctioned to the Society. That admittedly was not done. Despite that ICAR took up the matter and granted ex post facto approval for release of grant and agreed to the same subject to the approval from the concerned Department of the Government.