JUDGMENT 1. :- The instant writ petition is filed against the impugned order dated 29.9.2000, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, passed by Conservator of Forests and Field Director, Ranthambore National Park, Sawai Madhopur, whereby vehicles registered to enter in the Park with tourists are regulated by introducing roster system giving equal opporutnities to all such registered vehicles. 2. The order impugned, Annexure-6 passed by respondent No.2 is based on rational and relevant principle of equality which is non-discriminatory. In my considered opinion, according to the Constitutional philosophy enshrined under sub-Article (2) of Article 38 of the Constitution the State or its instrumentalities or its officers are to strive, to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. It is true that sub-Article (2) of Article 38 of the Constitution falls within Part IV of the Constitution within the ambit of directive principles of State policies which are not enfroceable in Courts of law, yet these directive principles of State policies are to be treated fundamental in the governance. 3. The order impugned dated 29.9.2000, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, has been passed in confirmity with Article 14 of the Constitution, providing equal protection of law and equal opportunities to the groups of vehicles registered for entering into the Park carrying tourists, whereby owners of these vehicles are earning their livelihod, therefore, the question of discrimination, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vimal Choudhary, does not arise in the present case. 4. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioners acted on the basis of the principles formulated by the respondent No.2 on 20.11.1999, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, he cannot be allowed to withdraw by formulating the impugned order dated 29.9.2000, Annexure-6, to the writ petition. 5. 4. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioners acted on the basis of the principles formulated by the respondent No.2 on 20.11.1999, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, he cannot be allowed to withdraw by formulating the impugned order dated 29.9.2000, Annexure-6, to the writ petition. 5. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is attractive but fallacious, in view of mandatory provisions envisaged under Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 which provides that where, by any Rajasthan law, a power to make or issue orders, rules, regulations, schemes, forms, bye-laws or notifications is conferred, then that power includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add, to amend, vary or rescind any orders, rules, regualtions, schemes, forms, bye-laws or notifications so made or issued. Thus, the aforesaid argument raised by Mr. Vimal Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, is devoid of merit and it is repelled. 6. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the respondent No.2 formulated scheme or took a policy decision on 20.11.2000 (sic 1999 ?) vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition, then, the same authority is not empowered to withdraw it, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners vide Annexure 6' to the writ petition. 7. It is well to remember that before taking policy decisions, issuing orders, making rules, regulations, schemes, forms, bye-laws or notifications, no opportunity of hearing is humanly practicable. What is true for taking initial policy decision, issuing orders, making rules, regulations, schemes, forms, bye- laws or notifications under Section 23 of Rajasthan General Clause Act, same principle is applicable while adding, amending, varying or rescinding such orders, rules, regulations, schemes, bye-laws or notifications, as the case may be and an argument contrary to it, is not acceptable. It is true that right of hearing is an integral part of natural justice but the principle of natural justice is not based on straight-jacket formula. The applicability of principle of natural justice depends on facts and circumstances of the each case. It is true that right of hearing is an integral part of natural justice but the principle of natural justice is not based on straight-jacket formula. The applicability of principle of natural justice depends on facts and circumstances of the each case. In case on hand, if an opportunity of hearing is provided to each individual vehicle owners at the time of amending the scheme of entry of vehicle in the Park carrying tourists, then, the concept of principle of natural justice was likely to be converted into the principle of unnatural justice. 8. Be that as it may, the scheme, Annexure-6, formulated by respondent No.2, amending the earlier scheme of entry of vehicles in the park carrying tourists, is found strictly within the Constitutional philosophy enshrined under Articles 14 and 38 (2) of the Constitution, which is supreme norm of the Nation, hence, I decline to issue prerogative writ of certiorari making the impugned roster system, Annexure-6, to be ineffective. For the reasons discussed hereinabove the present petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed in limine.Petition dismissed in limine *******