Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 381 (RAJ)

Raju Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-08

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Jugdment Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioner was appointed as Authorized Dealer under World Food Programme Scheme at RD 931, Main Canal, IGNP, Bikaner in the year 1992. The petitioner was accordingly permitted to distribute food stuffs in the area concerned under a permission granted by the competent authority by the letter dated 24.09.1992. By getting such permission the petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs. 5000/-as earnest money. 2. An amendment was introduced by the Government of Rajasthan in Rajasthan imported Food Stuff (Regulation of Distribution and Prohibition of Unauthorised Sale) Order, 1986 under a notification dated 08.04.1993 whereby in Clause (v) of the order of 1986 following words were added: "Authorized dealer will also furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-", shall be added after the words "such security deposit" 3. In light of the amendment introduced in Clause-(v) of the order of 1986 an Authorized Dealer was required to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-beside the security deposit. The Project Director, World Food Programme Scheme, Bikaner issued a notice dated 07.06.1993 to the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee in a tune of Rs. 20,000/-. The notice dated 07.06.1993 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the permission was granted to him to act as an Authorized Dealer to supply food stuffs under the Order of 1986 in the year 1992, therefore, the amendment introduced in the Order under the notification dated 08.04.1993 is having no application qua him as the amendment was made with prospective effect. 5. It is well settled that a statue always operates prospectively if not specifically mentioned in the statute itself to have retrospective application. The petitioner was an authorized dealer prior to 08.04.1993, therefore, the amended clause is not applicable on him. The respondents have wrongly applied the condition which was introduced in the Order of 1986 by the notification dated 08.04.1993. There was no need to instruct the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in a tune of Rs. 20,000/-in light of the amendment introduced in the Order of 1986. 6. In the light of whatever stated above the writ petition succeeds. The impugned notice dated 07.06.1993 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.