DWAPAR SANSTHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.12.2009 issued by the Government and the public notice dated 05.01.2010.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that on 04.12.2009, the respondent No.2, the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, had published an advertisement inviting applications for establishing Training Centers for animal husbandry in the State of Rajasthan. According to the said advertisement, the applicants were required to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- with the respondents prior to the issuance of the No Objection Certificate ('the NOC', for short). According to the petitioner, he had completed all the formalities and submitted his application for seeking the NOC. However, suddenly on 30th December, 2009, the petitioner was informed that he had to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- along with his application, which has not been done. Therefore, he was directed to deposit the said amount by 31.12.2009. Immediately on 31.12.2010, the petitioner sent a legal notice pointing out to the respondents that depositing of Rs.2,00,000/- along with the application was not a condition which was revealed or stated in the advertisement dated 04.12.2009. But further according to the petitioner, on 01st January, 2010, the respondents issued a public notice clearly stating that those who have applied for the NOC are directed to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- by 15th January, 2010. According to the petitioner, he received a reply of his legal notice on 13th January, 2010. So far the petitioner has not deposited the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, he is apprehensive that his application may be rejected by the respondents ostensibly on the ground that he has failed to deposit the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the said condition that the applicant has to deposit the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, was not stated in the initial advertisement issued by the respondents. The said condition is being imposed by the respondents only after the applications have been submitted. Thus, a condition is being imposed retrospectively. The retrospective imposition of a condition is illegal. Moreover, sufficient time has not been given to the petitioner to deposit the said amount. Therefore, his right of consideration is being jeopardize by the arbitrary action of the respondents.