Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 565 (RAJ)

Central Modern Edu. Society v. State

2022-02-17

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following prayer:- "(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 (Annexure-9) may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and further the letter dated 07.01.2013 (Annex. 11) rejecting the representation of petitioner may also be quashed and set aside. (b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the application form (Annex. 3) and to issue no objection certificate to establish New Livestock Assistant Diploma Training Institute. (c) The complete record in pursuance to advertisement dated 04.12.2009 may kindly be summoned for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy is no more res-integra, as the petitioner who is at serial no. 18 in Annexure-9 dated 27.07.2012 is on the same pedestal, as that of the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 832/2013 (New India School Samiti, Nai Khunja v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) which was decided on 15.05.2013, who is at serial No. 50 in the same Annexure-9 dated 27.07.2012. "1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 27.7.12 issued by the Director, Animal Husbandry Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur, refusing to issue the 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) in favour of the petitioner to establish the Live Stock Assistant Diploma Training Institute. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner, a society registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, applied for NOC to establish Live Stock Assistant Diploma Training Institute pursuant to an advertisement dated 4.12.09 issued by the respondent in the various newspapers inviting application for the said purpose. The Director, Animal Husbandry vide letter dated 4.5.10 informed the petitioner to remove certain deficiencies specified in the said communication. In response thereto, vide communication dated 4.6.10, the petitioner submitted the requisite documents for satisfying the deficiencies pointed out. The Director, Animal Husbandry vide letter dated 4.5.10 informed the petitioner to remove certain deficiencies specified in the said communication. In response thereto, vide communication dated 4.6.10, the petitioner submitted the requisite documents for satisfying the deficiencies pointed out. It is stated that the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Bikaner submitted the inspection report wherein no deficiency as such was pointed out but then, the recommendations were made that the NOC may be issued subject to removal of partial deficiencies in respect of Infrastructure facilities. However, vide order impugned dated 27.7.12, the application of the petitioner has been rejected without assigning any reason. Hence, this petition. 3. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition taking the stand that the recommendations to grant NOC in favor of the petitioner was made on the basis of the affidavits submitted by the petitioner regarding removal of deficiencies. It is submitted that the recommendations made were conditional. It is averred that the recommendations of the committee alongwith the physical verification report were examined at the higher Government level and it was decided not to issue NOC in favor of the petitioner and return the registration fees/inspection fees. It is submitted that the recommendations made being conditional, no right was created in favour of the petitioner and since the Government has taken a decision not to issue NOC on pending application, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the petitioner application without giving an opportunity of hearing and assigning any reason is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that no deficiencies were pointed out in the report submitted by inspecting team and the petitioner was never informed to remove the deficiencies. Learned counsel would submit that if there is any deficiency, the petitioner is always ready to remove the same. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have issued NOC in favour of some of the institutions but the same has been denied to the petitioner institution, whereas the petitioner is better entitled for the same. Accordingly, it is submitted that the treatment meted out to the petitioner by the respondents is ex facie discriminatory. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have issued NOC in favour of some of the institutions but the same has been denied to the petitioner institution, whereas the petitioner is better entitled for the same. Accordingly, it is submitted that the treatment meted out to the petitioner by the respondents is ex facie discriminatory. 5. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Government Counsel while reiterating the stand taken in the reply as noticed above, submitted that the petitioner has no vested right to claim the NOC and the petitioner having failed to remove the deficiency, the decision of the Government in refusing to NOC, cannot be faulted with. 6. I have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the petitioner applied for NOC to establish Live Stock Assistant Training Institute pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's institute was inspected team by the inspecting team, which made the recommendations for issuing NOC in favor of the petitioner subject to removal of the partial deficiencies. It is not the case of the respondents that at any stage, the petitioner was informed to remove the deficiencies alleged to have been pointed out by the inspecting team. No deficiencies are specified in the inspection report either. Thus, the rejection of the petitioner's application by the respondents without informing it about the deficiencies and giving it an opportunity to do the needful, is ex facie arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. In considered opinion of this court, before rejecting the application, the petitioner was required to be granted an opportunity to remove the defects and thus, the procedure adopted by the respondents in dealing with the application is not found to be fair and reasonable. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned refusing to grant NOC to establish the Live Stock Assistant Training Institute is quashed qua the petitioner. The respondents shall be at liberty to inspect the petitioner institute afresh and point out the deficiencies, if any. The application of the petitioner shall be considered afresh after giving it an opportunity to remove the deficiencies, if any. The petitioner's application shall be disposed of by the respondents by passing of a speaking order. No order as to costs." 4. The application of the petitioner shall be considered afresh after giving it an opportunity to remove the deficiencies, if any. The petitioner's application shall be disposed of by the respondents by passing of a speaking order. No order as to costs." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner's case and documents is on the same pedestal as that of petitioner-New India School Samiti, Nai Khunja (supra) and the petitioner cannot be blamed for not having the same adjudicated, as he approached this Court well in time and present writ petition is pending before this Court for last eight years. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the petition on the ground that NOC to establish the Live Stock Assistant Training Institute cannot be given now, as the scheme itself has been discontinued. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that though the controversy has been decided by this Court in the matter of New India School Samiti, Nai Khunja (supra), but thereafter the scheme itself has been discontinued by the State of Rajasthan and toady there is no apparatus with the State, which can provide the modus operandi to allow the petitioner on the same terms as that of New India School Samiti, Nai Khunja (supra). 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that two persons who have simultaneously approached this Court regarding the same order Annexure-9 of the same date i.e. 27.07.2012 and are on the same pedestal, as far as the facts and law is concerned, cannot be discriminated against whatever the reasons and once this Court passed the order in 2013 and interfered with qua the aforementioned petitioner i.e. New India School Samiti, Nai Khunja (supra) then the present petitioner also deserves the same relief, particularly, when he approached this Court in time. 7. In view of the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is allowed. The order impugned refusing to grant NOC to establish the Live Stock Assistant Training Institute is quashed qua the petitioner. The respondents shall be at liberty to inspect the petitioner institute afresh and point out the deficiencies, if any. The application of the petitioner shall be considered afresh after giving it an opportunity to remove the deficiencies, if any. The order impugned refusing to grant NOC to establish the Live Stock Assistant Training Institute is quashed qua the petitioner. The respondents shall be at liberty to inspect the petitioner institute afresh and point out the deficiencies, if any. The application of the petitioner shall be considered afresh after giving it an opportunity to remove the deficiencies, if any. The petitioner's application shall be disposed of by the respondents by passing of a speaking order. 8. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.