JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, J. — The petitioner, who is a retired Professor of Physics of Berhampur University, has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 3.8.2002 issued by the University Authorities revising the licence fee (house rent) in respect of its quarters during the period from 01.08.1991 to 30.06.2001 as per Annexure-1 as well as the order dated 27.08.2002 directing recovery of the arrear licence fee (house rent) as indicated in Annexure-5. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the writ application are that the petitioner, during the tenure of his service under the University, was allotted with a quarters by the University. After his retirement on 31.7.1999, he retained the quarters for a period of one year. During that period, the petitioner had paid the up-to-date rent and penal rent at the prevalent rate. In pursuance of the resolutions of the State Government dated 1.8.1991 and 18.9.1998, vide Annexures-2 and 3 respectively, revising the licence fee (house rent) in respect of Government quarters with effect from 1.8.1991 and 1.10.1998, the University by office order dated 3.8.2002, vide Annexure-1, revised the licence fee (house rent) at the rates indicated therein in re¬spect of different category/type of quarters of the University from 1.8.1991 and from 1.10.1998. In pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, the Syndicate took a decision on 18.07.2001. A letter was issued on 27.08.2002 by the Development Officer of the Uni¬versity to the Comptroller of Finance to recover the arrear licence fee of the retired teachers as mentioned therein against their names for the period as indicated above and the amount to be recoverable from the petitioner was Rs. 1,13,591.80. This amount was further revised and reduced to Rs. 82,983.00 as men¬tioned in paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the Resolutions of the State Government revising the licence fee under Annexures-2 and 3 were adopted by the University by virtue of order in Annex¬ure-1 dated 03.08.2002 and according to the petitioner, the said revised rate should be applicable only with effect from 03.08.2002 on which date the office order was passed and not prior to that date, which means the office order dated 03.08.2002 has no retrospective effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that in view of clause 276 of the Orissa Universi¬ty First Statutes, 1990, unless the Syndicate adopts the circular of the Government, the same cannot be made applicable. In the in¬stant case, the circulars of the State Government were adopted by the Syndicate in the month of August, 2002, whereafter the order in Annexure-1 was issued. Be that as it may, when the aforesaid circulars were adopt¬ed, the petitioner was not in occupation of the quarters. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 through the Development Officer, Berhampur University, a stand was taken that, in the note of the Accountant General, Orissa, it has been mentioned that scrutiny of the records of the Registrar, Berhampur University (May 2000/May 2001) revealed that though the University had framed its own Rules for allotment of residential quarters in the Syndicate Resolution made in Sep¬tember, 1994, it did not take into account the enhanced licence fee effected in Government from time to time for fixation of the licence fee recoverable from the employees of the University occupying different residential quarters under their control, even though house rent allowance was paid at revised rates as fixed by the Government. 5. This being pointed out by the Audit, the Registrar stated that licence fee was not recovered as per Government rate and the University Authorities had not taken any decision in this regard. The matter was referred to the Government, but there was no communication from the government to the University. But the Syndicate, in its Resolution No. 178 dated 13.06.2001 appointed a committee headed by Sri Niranjan Das, the then Principal, Nawa¬rangpur College, and member of the Syndicate to suggest the rate of licence fee (house rent) of the University quarters. The Committee, in its report dated 7.7.2001 recommended to charge at three times of the existing licence fee in respect of all types of quarters and the Syndicate vide its Resolution No. 199 dated 18.07.2001 approved the flat rate licence fee with effect from the salary bills of July 2001. 6. The Committee, in its report dated 7.7.2001 recommended to charge at three times of the existing licence fee in respect of all types of quarters and the Syndicate vide its Resolution No. 199 dated 18.07.2001 approved the flat rate licence fee with effect from the salary bills of July 2001. 6. In the meantime, the Government in the Department of Higher Education, in response to letter dated 8.6.2001 (Annexure-E/1), directed the University Authorities to cause recovery of the arrears in suitable instalments along with collecting the current dues at the prescribed rate from the salary bills of July 2001 and onwards vide Annexure-G/1. Taking into consideration the direction of the Government and the decision of the Syndicate, the Vice Chancellor, Berhampur University passed an order on 3.8.2002 (Annexure-1) directing recovery of the licence fee from 01.08.1991. 7. So according to the counsel for the opposite parties, the assessment of the licence fee made by the University for collection of arrear rent is correct and legal. 8. Having regard to the rival contentions made by the respective parties, we have to examine, whether the decision taken by the Syndicate in its resolution No. 199 dated 18.07.2001 can in any manner by applied retrospectively. In this regard, we may refer to a judgment of the apex Court in the case of Income-tax Officer, Alleppey v. I.M.C Ponnoose, AIR 1970 SC-385, wherein it was observed that “it is open to a sovereign legislature to enact laws which have retrospective opera¬tion. The Courts will not therefore, ascribe retrospectivity to new laws affecting the rights, unless by express words or neces¬sary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature”. 9. So in the case at hand, there is nothing in the counter affidavit or in the impugned order to show that the aforesaid decision is applicable in its retrospective effect from 1991 and it is also not disputed that the petitioner was not in occupation of the quarters on the date the Resolution was passed by the Syndicate approving the report of the Sub-Committee. Annexure-2 and 3 basing upon which the order under Annexure-1 was passed do not in anyway give the opposite parties to apply it in a retro¬spective effect. Annexure-2 and 3 basing upon which the order under Annexure-1 was passed do not in anyway give the opposite parties to apply it in a retro¬spective effect. The Resolution of the State Government were adopted by the University by virtue of order under Annexure-1, dated 03.08.2002 and for which the Resolutions of the State Government would only be applicable prospectively with effect from 03.08.2002. Hence the orders for recovery of revised house rent as per Annexures-1 and 5 are illegal, and the same are accordingly quashed, so far as they relate to the petitioner. The writ application is accordingly allowed. No cost. R. N. BISWAL, J. I agree. Application allowed.