RAGHVENDRA SINGH SIKARVAAR Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the orders dtd. 18/1/2021, 19/12/2022 and 13/03/2024 passed by the respondents.

(2.) Facts of the case in short are as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay 10% of the amount of recovery as there was no provision in the Rules of 1996. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that a new amendment in Rule 60(5) of the Rules of 1996 was introduced vide gazette notification dtd. 22/1/2021, whereas the impugned order against which appeal was filed was passed on 18/1/2021. Therefore, the amendment brought in Rule 60(5) is prospective in nature and the State Government has wrongly dismissed the appeal. In support of his contention, Shri Shashank Sharma, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of ECGC Ltd. Vs. Mokul Shriram (Civil Appeal 1842 of 2021) and the order dtd. 13/2/2023 passed in the case of M/s Bhartiya Constructions Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Civil Appeal 1062-63/2023)