JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, being a public charitable trust registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, has approached this Court praying therein for quashing/setting aside of the decision as contained in Memo No. 471 dated 20.03.2024, passed by the Department of Higher and Technical Education, State of Jharkhand; whereunder an order has been passed for forfeiting the entire endowment fund to the tune of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Four Crores) only of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts as it appears from the pleadings is that the petitioner’s charitable trust has been registered with the object to impart education, medical relief, relief to poor, etc. and was desirous to establish a University at Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand. 4. The Government of Jharkhand framed a ‘Model Guidelines’ for establishment and incorporation of Private Universities in the State of Jharkhand primarily with a view to improve access to the Higher Education in the State to enhance the Gross Enrolment Ratio and also to improve overall quality of Higher Education in Jharkhand by encouraging reputed Educational Institutions to set up new Institutions in the State. 5. Petitioner applied pursuant to aforesaid Model Guidelines for establishment and incorporation of Private Universities in the State of Jharkhand and, pursuant to scrutiny of its application, a Letter of Intent (In short ‘LOI’) contained in Letter No. 2270 dated 30.11.2015 was issued by the State Government accepting the proposal of the petitioner for establishment of Private University in the State of Jharkhand. In the said LOI, various conditions were imposed upon the petitioner including the condition to deposit of an Endowment fund of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Four crores) only for multi-domain educational curriculum. Said LOI further provided, inter alia, that the petitioner should acquire 25 acres of land for multi-domain educational curriculum and, further, it was provided, inter alia, that petitioner would give an undertaking not to dissolve the University before 15 years of its establishment and if the University is dissolved before 15 years, all the assets of the University without liabilities and free from all encumbrances, shall vest with the Government. 6. Consequent upon the said Letter of Intent, Petitioner gave its consent and created an Endowment fund of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Four crores) vide Fixed Deposit drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Main Road, Ranchi Branch vide F.D. No. 191822 dated 19.02.2016. 6. Consequent upon the said Letter of Intent, Petitioner gave its consent and created an Endowment fund of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Four crores) vide Fixed Deposit drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Main Road, Ranchi Branch vide F.D. No. 191822 dated 19.02.2016. In fact, the petitioner, immediately after issuance of aforesaid LOI, even entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 11.01.2016 for purchase of land measuring an area of 29 acres and advanced a sum of Rs.55,02,200.20/-to landowner. Thereafter, Government of Jharkhand enacted ‘Pragyan International University Act, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), wherein provisions were incorporated for establishment of a university in the name and style ‘Pragyan International University’. 7. Schedule-A of the said Act provided, inter alia, for acquisition of 25 acres of land for multi-domain functioning of the university within two years after starting the functioning of the university and establishment of integrated campus having certain facilities in common, such as, Auditorium, Cafeteria, Hostels, etc. 8. Further, Section 37 of the Act provided, inter alia, that Petitioner-Trust shall establish an Endowment fund for the University with an amount specified in the Letter of Intent and said Endowment fund shall be used as Security Deposit to ensure that the University complies with the provisions of the Act. Section 37(2) gave power to the State Government to forfeit the Endowment Fund, in part or whole, in case the University contravenes any of the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations or the Rules made under the Act. 9. From the pleadings, it further transpires that despite the fact that petitioner entered into an Agreement for Sale for acquisition of 29 acres of land, it could not acquire the said land for establishment of main campus of the University and it is the case of the petitioner that fraud was committed by landowners with whom it had entered into the Agreement for acquisition of land. The further case of the petitioner is that although it could not acquire land for its main campus, but the petitioner edited and published several books on the issue of personal and social development and one such book was released by the then Chief Minister of Jharkhand Mr. Rahubar Das, titled as “A Concise Book on Yoga”. The further case of the petitioner is that although it could not acquire land for its main campus, but the petitioner edited and published several books on the issue of personal and social development and one such book was released by the then Chief Minister of Jharkhand Mr. Rahubar Das, titled as “A Concise Book on Yoga”. It is the further case of the petitioner that on several occasions it approached the State Government for facilitating it for purchase of land, but no heed was paid in respect of the same by the State Government. 10. From the pleadings made in the writ application as well as Counter Affidavit, it would transpire that a Committee was constituted by the State of Jharkhand for evaluating the functioning of private Universities established and functioning in the State of Jharkhand and said Committee submitted a report contained in Memo No. 1226 dated 02.08.2022 relating to ‘Pragyan International University’ stating, inter alia, that no existence of University was found in Ranchi and, as such, University could not be established in time prescribed under the Act. Consequent upon such report and direction issued by Hon’ble Chancellor, Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Jharkhand issued a show cause notice to the petitioner in terms of Section 43(1) of the Pragyan International University Act, 2016 being Show Cause Notice No. 1018 dated 10.05.2023. In the said Show Cause Notice dated 10.05.2023, petitioner was directed to show cause as to why in exercise of power under Section 43(1) of the Act, 2016, direction be not issued for closure of the University and further action be not taken for repeal of the enactment. 11. The petitioner duly replied to the show cause notice and the same was considered by a Committee headed by Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Jharkhand in its meeting dated 21.09.2023, wherein the Committee observed that petitioner could not make the University functioning even after seven years of its establishment and, thus, failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and, accordingly, the Committee, vide its recommendation dated 21.09.2023, recommended for cancellation of Letter of Intent issued in favour of the petitioner including forfeiture of Endowment Fund and repeal the Pragyan International University Act, 2016. 12. Consequent upon aforesaid recommendation, Pragyan International University (Repeal) Act, 2023 was enacted, by which Pragyan International University Act, 2016 was repealed. 12. Consequent upon aforesaid recommendation, Pragyan International University (Repeal) Act, 2023 was enacted, by which Pragyan International University Act, 2016 was repealed. Said Repealing Act was published in the official Gazette on 20.02.2024. 13. After repeal of aforesaid Act of 2016, a decision was taken for forfeiture of entire Endowment fund of Rs. 4,00,00,00/- (Four crores) in terms of Section 37(2) of the Act of 2016, and, said decision was approved by State Cabinet and, thereafter impugned order as contained in Departmental Resolution No. 471 dated 20.03.2024 was issued forfeiting the entire Endowment fund of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Four crores), which has been assailed by the petitioner. 14. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, at the outset, has challenged the decision of forfeiture of Endowment fund by the State Government, by contending, inter alia, that once Pragyan International University Act, 2016 itself was repealed vide Pragyan International University (Repeal) Act, 2023, dated 20th February, 2024, no action, whatsoever, under the aforesaid Act for forfeiture of Endowment fund could have been taken by the State Government. 15. It has been submitted that normal effect and consequence of repeal of a Statute is that the Statute, after its repeal, is completely obliterate as if it has never been enacted and, therefore, no action under the repealed Act could have been taken by the State Government after its repeal. Reliance was placed upon the provisions of Section 2 of the Repeal Act and it was stated that saving clause under the Repealing Act only saved anything done or any action taken or purported to have done or taken under the Act. It has been submitted that, ordinarily, when an Act is repealed simpliciter without any saving clause, the provision of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would apply. However, it was submitted that a bare perusal of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act itself would reveal that said provision would apply unless there is some indication to the contrary, such as a saving clause. It has been submitted that saving clause under the Repealing Act only saved any act already done or action already taken under the repealed Act and does not enable the State Government to take action subsequent to repeal of the Act. 16. Further, while relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of ‘Bachhitar Singh Vs. 16. Further, while relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of ‘Bachhitar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 , it has been held that “noting” in the internal files and/or note-sheet does not amount to an order and, at best, it is an expression of opinion which may be changed, and, it only becomes an order when such opinion is formally made to a decision. Relying upon the said decision, it was submitted by Mr. Das that merely because there was some recommendation of the Committee for forfeiture of Endowment Fund will not amount to a decision for forfeiture of the amount and even approval of the Cabinet would not amount to a decision unless the same is communicated to the petitioner. It has been vehemently argued that the order regarding forfeiture of Endowment Fund was issued and communicated after repeal of the Act of 2016 and in view of limited saving clause, the State Government had no authority to pass any order for forfeiture of Endowment Fund. 17. Per contra, Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C to A.G representing the State submitted that the petitioner, in terms of LOI and the Act of 2016, was required to purchase 25 acres of land and to establish its main campus Building over the said land, which the petitioner failed to do so even after a lapse of seven years from the date of enactment of the Act of 2016. It has been further submitted that an Enquiry Committee was constituted for enquiring into the functioning of Universities and it was found that Petitioner’s University has not been established or is functioning, as it has not purchased any land and, subsequent upon such finding of the Committee, recommendation was made for repeal of the Act of 2016 including forfeiture of Endowment Fund. It has been further submitted that repeal and saving clause under the Repealing Act, 2023 is wide enough in its purport to cover the decision of forfeiture of Endowment Fund. 18. Further, while relying upon the show cause notice, it has been submitted that action of forfeiture of Endowment Fund was already initiated under the Act of 2016 and, thus, consequential order for forfeiture of Endowment Fund is saved by the repeal and saving clause of the Repeal Act, 2023. 19. 18. Further, while relying upon the show cause notice, it has been submitted that action of forfeiture of Endowment Fund was already initiated under the Act of 2016 and, thus, consequential order for forfeiture of Endowment Fund is saved by the repeal and saving clause of the Repeal Act, 2023. 19. Having heard the counsels for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits including both the Acts, this Court is of the opinion that the sole issue involved for consideration in the present case is that: “whether the repeal and saving clause contained in Pragyan International University (Repeal) Act, 2023 has an effect of saving inchoate rights also or it saves only acquired or accrued right under the repealed Statute i.e. ‘Pragyan International University Act, 2016”. 20. In India Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, reported in (1975)3 SCC 512 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that repeal connotes abrogation and obliteration of one Statute by another from the Statute-book as completely as if it had never been passed. When an Act is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions past and closed as if it had never existed. Repeal is not a matter of mere form but is of substance, depending on the intention of the Legislature. If the intention indicated either expressly or by necessary implication in the subsequent statute was to abrogate or wipe off the former enactment wholly or in part, then it would be a case of total or pro tanto repeal. 21. In Crawford’s Interpretation of Law (1989) at p. 626, quoted with approval in the case of Gajraj Singh –vs- State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 650 , it is stated that:- “An express repeal will operate to abrogate an existing law, unless there is some indication to the contrary, such as a saving clause. Even existing rights and pending litigation, both civil and criminal, may be affected although it is not an uncommon practice to use the saving clause in order to preserve existing right and to exempt pending litigation.” However, it is also a well settled law that when an Act is repealed simpliciter without any saving clause, the provision of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would set in and would be read as saving clause under the repealed statute. 22. 22. Provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act has been the subject matter of interpretation by various Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court including the Judgment in the case of ‘State of Odisha and Anr. Vs. Anup Kumar Senapati & Anr., reported in (2019) 19 SCC 626 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the provision of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, vide paras 30 and 32, held as under:- “30. The provisions contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act stipulate that by the repeal of enactment, the benefit given to the person concerned shall not be affected. However, the repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes place. The previous operation of any enactment or anything duly done or suffered thereunder shall not be affected or any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed….” “32. It is apparent from the aforesaid discussion that what is unaffected by the repeal of a statute is a right acquired or accrued and not mere hope or expectation of or liberty to apply for acquiring a right. There is a distinction in making an application for acquiring a right. If under some repealed enactment, a right has been given, but if investigation in respect of a right is necessary whether such right should be or should not be given, no such right is saved. Right to take advantage of a provision is not saved. After repeal, an advantage available under the repealed Act to apply and obtain relief is not a right which is saved when the application was necessary and it was discretionary to grant the relief and investigation was required whether relief should be granted or not. The repeal would not save the right to obtain such a relief…” 23. A perusal of the aforesaid report would demonstrate that even under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, what is unaffected by repeal of a Statute is a right acquired or accrued and not mere hope and expectation or liberty to apply for acquiring a right. 24. In the Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edn. A perusal of the aforesaid report would demonstrate that even under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, what is unaffected by repeal of a Statute is a right acquired or accrued and not mere hope and expectation or liberty to apply for acquiring a right. 24. In the Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edn. By Justice G.P. Singh, the following observation has been made:- “The distinction between what is, and what is not a right preserved by the provisions of Section 6, General Clauses Act is often one of the great fineness. What is unaffected by the repeal of a statute is a right acquired or accrued under it and not a mere “hope or expectation of”, or liberty to apply for, acquiring a right. A distinction is drawn between a legal proceeding for enforcing a right acquired or accrued and a legal proceeding for acquisition of a right. The former is saved whereas the latter is not.” It is further trite law that provision of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would apply only to a case of repeal simpliciter unless contrary intention can be gathered from the repealing Act. Section 6 would be applicable, unless repealing Statute manifests intention inconsistent with or contrary to the application of the Section. The endeavor of this Court would be thus to look into the provisions of the repealing Act only for the purpose of determining “Whether the repealing Act indicates different intention than contemplated under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and whether the object of repeal is to obliterate the Repealed Act and to get rid of certain obsolete matters”. 25. While applying ratio of the aforesaid Judgments, the facts of the present case is required to be ascertained, especially the intent of the repeal and saving clauses contained in Pragyan International University (Repeal) Act, 2023. For the sake of ready reference, the repealing Act, in its entirety is quoted herein-under: “PRAGYAN INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY (REPEAL) ACT, 2023. (Jharkhand Act, 01, 2024) An Act to repeal the Pragyan Internation University Act, 2016 in its application to the State of Jharkhand. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Jharkhand in the seventy fourth year of the republic of India as follows:- 1. Short Title, Extent and Commencement- (1) This act may be called the Pragyan International University (Repeal) Act, 2023. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Jharkhand in the seventy fourth year of the republic of India as follows:- 1. Short Title, Extent and Commencement- (1) This act may be called the Pragyan International University (Repeal) Act, 2023. (2) It shall extend to the whole State of Jharkhand. (3) It shall come into force with immediate effect. 2. Repeal and Saving – The Pragyan International University Act, 2016 is hereby repealed. Provided that Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.” 26. A bare perusal of the repeal and saving clause reveal that said repeal and saving clause intended to save the following actions taken under the Repealed Act, namely;-- (1) “Anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Act.” Thus, under the repealing Act, what has been saved is anything done or any action already taken under the repealing Act or purported to have done or taken under the Repealed Act. The term ‘purported’ as defined in Cambridge University means:- “that has been stated to be true or to have happened, although this may not be the case: 27. Further, the term ‘purported as defined in Collins English Dictionary means:- “alleged; supposed, rumoured” 28. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the firm opinion that repeal and saving clause contained in the Repealed Act, 2023 is limited in its scope and applicability, and, it only saves any action done or taken under the Act of 2016 and it does not save any inchoate rights. The effect upon inchoate rights upon repeal of a Statute has been explained in ‘Sutherland Statutory Construction (3rd Edn.) Vol.I by Horack, in paras 2043 to 2045, and it has been stated as under:- “Effect upon inchoate rights. Rights of action which are dependent upon a statute, and which are still inchoate and not reduced to possession or perfected by final judgment, are lost by the repeal of the statute from which they stem. Rights of action which are dependent upon a statute, and which are still inchoate and not reduced to possession or perfected by final judgment, are lost by the repeal of the statute from which they stem. This rule of construction is simply a restatement of the common law principle of construction that the repeal of a statute operates to divest all rights accruing under the repealed statute and all proceedings not concluded prior to the repeal, since inchoate right are by definition not vested rights such as to escape the common law rule of effacement. The inchoate rights are but an incident to the statute and fall with its repeal”. (Ref. Gajraj Singh V. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 650 ). 29. In the present case, admittedly, the Government of Jharkhand enacted ‘Pragyan International University Act, 2016, solely for promotion of Petitioner-Trust i.e. Pragyan Foundation and to confer it the status of Private University. 30. The Petitioner, as per Respondent, was unable to establish its University and, accordingly, a show cause notice dated 10.05.2023 was issued directing the petitioner to show cause as to why in terms of Section 43(1), action be not taken for closure of the University and repeal of the Pragyan International University Act, 2016. 31. Said show cause notice was issued under Section 43 of the Act of 2016, which is quoted here-under:- “43. Special Powers of State Government under certain circumstances. (1) Where the State Government is of the opinion that the University has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, the Rules, the Statutes or the Ordinances made thereunder or has violated any of the direction issue by it under this Act or a situation of financial mismanagement or mal-administration has arisen in the University, it shall issue the notice requiring the University to show cause within forty-five days as to why an administrator be not appointed. (2) On receipt of reply of the University on the notice issued under sub-section (1), if the State Government is satisfied that there is a prima facie case of contravention of any of the provision of this Act, the Rules, the Statutes, or the Ordinances made thereunder or violation of directions issued by it under this Act or there is financial mismanagement or maladministration, it shall make an order of such inquiry as it may consider necessary. (3) The State Government shall, for the purposes of any such inquiry under sub-section (2), appoint an inquiry officer or officers to inquire into any of the allegations and to make report thereon. (4) The inquiry officer or officers appointed under sub-section (3) shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) Requiring the discovery and production of any such document or any other material as may be predicable in evidence; (c) Requisitioning any public record from any court or office. (5) On receipt of the inquiry report from the officer or officers appointed under sub-section (3), if the State Government is satisfied that the University has contravened all or any of the provisions of this Act, the Rules, the Statutes or the Ordinances made thereunder or has violated any of the directions issued by it under this Act or a situation of financial mismanagement and maladministration has arisen in the University which threatens the academic standard of the University, it may appoint an administrator. (6) The administrator appointed under sub-section (5) shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the Governing Body and the Board of Management under this Act and shall administer the affairs of the University until the last batch of the students of the regular courses have completed their courses and they have been awarded with degrees, diplomas, or, as the case may be awards. (7) After having been awarded the degrees, diplomas or, as the case may be, to the last batches of the students of the regular courses, the administrator shall make a report to that effect to the State Government. (8) On receipt of the report under sub-section (7), the State Government shall dissolve the University and on dissolution of the University, all the assets and liabilities of the University shall vest in the sponsoring body.” 32. (8) On receipt of the report under sub-section (7), the State Government shall dissolve the University and on dissolution of the University, all the assets and liabilities of the University shall vest in the sponsoring body.” 32. A perusal of Section 43 of the Act would reveal that the if the State Government was of the opinion that any University has contravened the provisions of the Act, the Rules, the Statutes or the Ordinances, and has indulged into financial mismanagement or maladministration, State Government may appoint an administrator for running the said University and the administrator, so appointed, would be conferred with all powers and would perform all duties of Governing Body and Board of Management of the University and would administer the affairs of the University. 33. The said Section further enables the State Government to dissolve the University and, on dissolution of the University, all assets and liabilities of the University was to vest upon sponsoring Body i.e. the Petitioner. Thus, the show cause notice, which was issued to the petitioner under Section 43 of the Act of 2016, only contemplated action for appointment of Administrator, but in the show cause notice, petitioner was further show caused as to why the Act of 2016 itself be not repealed. 34. Subsequently, by Repealed Act of 2023, the Act of 2016 was repealed with limited saving clause as stated aforesaid. 35. The intent of the State Legislature was absolutely clear and unambiguous; since the petitioner could not establish Private University, State Government intended to obliterate and delete from the Statute-book the Act of 2016 which enabled the petitioner to establish an University. 36. It is under the said background limited saving clause was inserted in the Repealed Act of 2023, only saving action already taken and done under the Act of 2016. 37. Respondent-State argued that show cause notice dated 10th May, 2023 was already issued to the petitioner and, thereafter, a Committee headed by Director, Higher Education, in its meeting dated 21.09.2023, recommended for repeal of the Pragyan International University Act, 2016 and to issue appropriate order for forfeiture of Endowment Fund in terms of Section 37(2) of the Act of 2016. Respondent-State argued that show cause notice dated 10th May, 2023 was already issued to the petitioner and, thereafter, a Committee headed by Director, Higher Education, in its meeting dated 21.09.2023, recommended for repeal of the Pragyan International University Act, 2016 and to issue appropriate order for forfeiture of Endowment Fund in terms of Section 37(2) of the Act of 2016. It has been submitted that prior to publication of the Repealed Act vide Gazette Notification dated 20.02.2024, there was already a recommendation of the Committee for forfeiture of the Endowment Fund and, thus, consequently impugned Departmental Notification No. 471 dated 20.03.2024, although issued after repeal of the Act, would fall within the purview of saving provision and would be treated as an act done or action taken under the Repealed Act. 38. In my opinion, the aforesaid argument cannot withstand the test of legal scrutiny, inasmuch as, mere noting in the official file of the Government while dealing with any matter pertaining to any entity, is essentially an internal matter of the government and carries with it no legal sanctity unless such decision is approved by the competent authority empowered by the Government in that behalf and is communicated to the person concerned by the State Government. In other words, so long as the decision based on such internal deliberation is not approved and communicated by the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed, the same would not create either any right or fasten any liability upon the person concerned and would not partake the nature of any legal order so as to enable the person concerned to claim any benefit of any such internal deliberation. 39. The aforesaid law has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision rendered in the case of Bachhitar Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) and it has been held that mere noting in internal file or note-sheet does not amount to an order and, at best, it is an expression of opinion which may be subjected to change. The relevant observation reads as under :- “9. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The relevant observation reads as under :- “9. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and then it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file.” “10. The business of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large number of officials and authorities. The Constitution, therefore, requires and so did the Rules of Business framed by the Rajpramukh of PEPSU provide, that the action must be taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Rajpramukh. It is not till this formality is observed that the action can be regarded as that of the State or here, by the Rajpramukh. Indeed, it is possible that after expressing one opinion about a particular matter at a particular stage a Minister or the Council of Ministers may express quite a different opinion, one which may be completely opposed to the earlier opinion. Which of them can be regarded as the “order” of the State Government? Therefore, to make the opinion amount to a decision of the Government it must be communicated to the person concerned.” Emphasis Supplied 40. In view of the above, I am of the firm opinion that after repeal of the statute and in view of limited saving clause, Respondent-State of Jharkhand, in alleged exercise of power under Section 37(2) of the Act of 2016 could not have passed any order for forfeiture of the Endowment Fund of the petitioner. Accordingly, impugned order as contained in Memo No. 471 dated 20.03.2024; wherein Respondent-authority has passed an order for forfeiture of entire Endowment Fund to the tune of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Four crores), is hereby, quashed and set aside. Accordingly, impugned order as contained in Memo No. 471 dated 20.03.2024; wherein Respondent-authority has passed an order for forfeiture of entire Endowment Fund to the tune of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Four crores), is hereby, quashed and set aside. Consequently, the concerned Bank namely, Bank of Maharashstra, Main Road, Ranchi Branch, is directed to release the Fixed Deposit made by the petitioner vide F.D. No. 191822 dated 19.02.2016 along with accrued interest thereon to the petitioner as early as possible but not later than a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 41. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, is closed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.