JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The present batch of Special Appeals (Writ) has been preferred by the appellant–State and its authorities assailing multiple orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various writ petitions filed by different Gaushala/Goshala societies. For the sake of convenience, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 168/2025 is treated as the lead case, as the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed therein, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4199/2024 titled “Hariyala Rajasthan Gaushala Vikash Sansthan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, formed the foundational basis on which the other writ petitions were subsequently allowed. The brief facts and the challenge in the appeals are therefore being noted from the said lead matter, and the remaining connected Special Appeals (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 1075/2024, 1117/2024, 1134/2024, 1151/2024, 1155/2024, 1200/2024, 1212/2024, 1213/2024, 1218/2024, 1224/2024, 36/2025) shall stand disposed of in accordance with the decision rendered herein. 1.1. The present Special Appeal No. 168/2025 has been preferred claiming the following relief: “ It is therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and; (i) The impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4199/2024 (Hariyala Rajasthan Gaushala Vikash Sansthan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) may kindly be quashed and set aside consequential thereof the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner may kindly be dismissed with costs. (ii) Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted. (iii) Cost of the present appeal may kindly be awarded in favour of the appellants.” 2. Before entering into the factual matrix of this case this Court notes that bovine protection and welfare constitute an integral component of the State’s public policy, particularly in the arid and ecologically vulnerable region of Western Rajasthan, where cattle rearing and allied activities form a significant part of the rural economy. Recognising the indispensable role played by Gaushalas in providing shelter, nutrition and medical care to stray, abandoned and infirm bovine animals, the State Government issued guidelines dated 08.02.2021 to extend financial assistance to duly registered Gaushalas, proportionate to the number of bovine animals maintained. The scheme is conceived as a welfare measure aimed at ensuring the sustenance of bovine livestock and strengthening institutional accountability. It is against this welfare- oriented statutory and administrative backdrop that the present controversy arises. The scheme is conceived as a welfare measure aimed at ensuring the sustenance of bovine livestock and strengthening institutional accountability. It is against this welfare- oriented statutory and administrative backdrop that the present controversy arises. 3. The brief facts, as emerging from the lead case, are that the respondent–writ petitioner is a registered society running a Gaushala at Village Jesurana, District Jaisalmer, and is maintaining bovine animals eligible for financial assistance under the State Government Guidelines dated 08.02.2021. Pursuant to these guidelines, a physical inspection of the Gaushala was conducted by the Inspectors of the Animal Husbandry Department on 25.09.2023, wherein 498 bovine animals were found and the inspection report was duly forwarded to the competent authority. On the strength of this verified inspection report, an administrative and financial sanction dated 16.01.2024 was issued by the Department granting financial assistance to the respondent–Gaushala. However, before the sanctioned amount could be released, the Director, Gopalan-Directorate, issued an order dated 14.02.2024 withdrawing the sanctioned grant on the basis of a subsequent surprise inspection said to have been conducted on 07.02.2024, wherein a lesser number of bovine animals were allegedly found. The said withdrawal was made without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without placing any material on record to contradict the earlier inspection report dated 25.09.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Single Judge by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4199/2024, in which the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 25.04.2024, quashed the order dated 14.02.2024 and directed disbursal of the sanctioned financial assistance, leaving it open to the State to proceed afresh in accordance with law for future periods. The present Special Appeals have been preferred against the said judgment. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Ravindra Jala and Mr. Deepak Suthar & Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, Additional Advocate General , Mr. Shanu Prajapat, Mr. Arpit Samaria, appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailed the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 and submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the scheme, the guidelines and the factual matrix in their correct perspective, resulting in an unwarranted interference with a bona fide administrative decision taken to safeguard public revenue. 4.1. Shanu Prajapat, Mr. Arpit Samaria, appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailed the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 and submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the scheme, the guidelines and the factual matrix in their correct perspective, resulting in an unwarranted interference with a bona fide administrative decision taken to safeguard public revenue. 4.1. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Gopalan Department issued detailed guidelines, inter alia on 21.08.2023 for the financial year 2023–24, wherein the Director, Gopalan-Directorate, as also the District Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, have been specifically empowered to conduct surprise inspections of Gaushalas before disbursement of financial assistance and even thereafter, so as to verify the actual number of bovine animals and to ensure that the grants are not released on the basis of inflated or incorrect figures. In exercise of this power, a committee was constituted vide order dated 31.01.2024 and, pursuant thereto, a surprise inspection was conducted in the respondent–Gaushala on 07.02.2024. 4.2 Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that during the surprise inspection dated 07.02.2024, grave irregularities were noticed. It was urged that, as against the figures disclosed earlier for the purpose of grant, only a negligible number of cattle were found on site and, in fact, the inspection team noticed that there was no proper staff present, the Gaushala was situated in the midst of agricultural fields with no abadi nearby and no independent witness was available. The inspection also revealed serious deficiencies with respect to tagging of bovine animals and maintenance of records. It was contended that these findings prima facie falsify the earlier position projected by the respondent–Gaushala and gave rise to a serious doubt that the number of bovines reflected at the time of the earlier inspection had been manipulated to secure financial benefits. 4.3 Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that under the applicable guidelines every bovine kept in a Gaushala is required to be ear-tagged and the Gaushala is obligated to maintain a proper register in the prescribed form (including Form No.5), wherein each death, sale, donation or transport of a bovine is to be contemporaneously recorded in red ink. However, at the time of the surprise inspection dated 07.02.2024, the requisite registers and records were either not found at all or were found to be grossly deficient, thereby justifying the immediate stoppage of the financial assistance until the matter was thoroughly verified. However, at the time of the surprise inspection dated 07.02.2024, the requisite registers and records were either not found at all or were found to be grossly deficient, thereby justifying the immediate stoppage of the financial assistance until the matter was thoroughly verified. It was urged that the Director, Gopalan-Directorate, therefore, rightly issued the order dated 14.02.2024 directing the District Collector, Jaisalmer, to withhold the grant sanctioned in favour of the respondent–Gaushala. 4.4 Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 proceeds on an erroneous premise that there was “no material on record” to contradict the inspection report dated 25.09.2023. It was argued that the surprise inspection dated 07.02.2024, coupled with the absence of proper records, non-compliance with tagging requirements and the subsequent decision to initiate action against erring officials who prepared the earlier inspection report, together constitute cogent material raising serious doubt about the correctness and reliability of the earlier inspection. In these circumstances, it was contended, the Director could not have blindly acted upon the earlier report and was duty-bound to arrest any potential leakage of public funds. 4.5 Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the order dated 14.02.2024 is essentially an administrative step taken in the larger public interest to protect the State exchequer, and that no vested or indefeasible right accrues in favour of a Gaushala merely on the issuance of a sanction letter, particularly when serious discrepancies regarding the existence and number of bovine animals are discovered before actual disbursement. It was contended that in such circumstances, the requirement of a pre- decisional personal hearing cannot be stretched to the extent of compelling the State to release funds in the face of apparent fraud or misrepresentation, and at the highest, any alleged infraction of natural justice would be a curable irregularity. 4.6 Learned Additional Advocate General also pointted out that in the writ petition, the respondent–writ petitioner did not even specifically plead or demonstrate the actual number of bovine animals present in the Gaushala on the date of surprise inspection i.e. 07.02.2024. According to him, this omission itself indicates that the petitioner was not in a position to assert that the number of bovines then present matched the earlier figures disclosed for the purpose of grant. According to him, this omission itself indicates that the petitioner was not in a position to assert that the number of bovines then present matched the earlier figures disclosed for the purpose of grant. It was further submitted that the guidelines also contemplate recovery of amounts wrongly paid where serious irregularities are detected, and thus, the action of the appellants in withholding the grant and contemplating further proceedings is in consonance with the scheme of the policy. On these broad premises, learned Additional Advocate General prayed that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge be quashed and the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–writ petitioner supportted the impugned order and submitted that the action of the appellants in withholding the sanctioned financial assistance is wholly arbitrary, unsustainable in law and violative of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a duly registered Gaushala maintaining bovine animals in accordance with the guidelines dated 08.02.2021, and its entitlement is based on a valid physical verification carried out by the Inspectors of the Animal Husbandry Department on 25.09.2023, in which 498 bovine animals were duly found and recorded. On the strength of this report, the competent authority issued a financial/administrative sanction dated 16.01.2024, which created a legitimate expectation that the sanctioned amount would be released unless the earlier inspection was shown to be false on cogent and objective material. 5.1 Learned counsel submitted that the subsequent surprise inspection dated 07.02.2024 cannot retrospectively nullify or obliterate the earlier inspection report dated 25.09.2023, which represented the factual position prevailing at the time of consideration of the petitioner’s claim. It was urged that the State has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the earlier inspection report was false, fabricated or incorrect; nor has any finding been recorded by any competent authority to that effect. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the sanctioned grant could not be denied on the basis of an unverified and disputed subsequent inspection, particularly when the appellants themselves conceded before the learned Single Judge that no material contradicting the earlier report was on record. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the sanctioned grant could not be denied on the basis of an unverified and disputed subsequent inspection, particularly when the appellants themselves conceded before the learned Single Judge that no material contradicting the earlier report was on record. 5.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the order dated 14.02.2024, whereby the sanctioned payment was withheld, was passed without issuing any show cause notice, without furnishing a copy of the surprise inspection report, and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that this omission goes to the root of the matter, as the petitioner had no opportunity to clarify, rebut or explain the alleged deficiencies noted in the surprise inspection. It is urged that non-observance of natural justice not only vitiates the administrative decision but also causes prejudice by depriving the Gaushala of essential financial support required for the maintenance of bovine animals. 5.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the surprise inspection dated 07.02.2024 was itself irregular, unannounced and carried out without notice, and that the petitioner disputes the correctness of the figures noted therein. It was contended that the appellants cannot rely on such a disputed and untested inspection report to withhold an already-sanctioned amount particularly when the inspection was conducted at a different point in time and for a subsequent phase of assistance. Learned counsel emphasised that the respondent–Gaushala maintains proper records and tagging as per the guidelines, and that any occasional absence of a staff member or record at a particular moment cannot be elevated to the level of a conclusive finding of manipulation or fraud. 5.4 Learned counsel finally submitted that the learned Single Judge has adopted a fair, balanced and legally sound approach by quashing the order dated 14.02.2024 solely to the extent that it retrospectively affected an earlier sanctioned amount, while at the same time protecting the interest of the State by permitting it to proceed in accordance with law for any future period after following due process and granting opportunity of hearing. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order does not call for interference in appellate jurisdiction. 6. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order does not call for interference in appellate jurisdiction. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record, the impugned order dated 25.04.2024, the inspection reports dated 25.09.2023 and 07.02.2024, the sanction letter dated 16.01.2024, the withholding order dated 14.02.2024, and the detailed Guidelines dated 21.08.2023 governing financial assistance to Gaushalas . 6.1. This Court notes that the financial-assistance scheme of the State is a welfare measure intended to ensure that bovine animals actually maintained in Gaushalas receive nutrition, water, tagging and medical care. The Guidelines dated 21.08.2023 lay down strict compliance requirements, including: - compulsory ear-tagging of every bovine animal - mandatory maintenance of the Form-5 register, with every death, sale, donation, and transport entry being recorded in red ink - uploading of animal-wise data on the INAPH Portal and maintenance of records in prescribed Excel formats - power of the Director, Gopalan-Directorate, and District Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, to conduct inspections, including surprise inspections at any time - power to stop, withhold or recover grants if irregularities are detected. These provisions show that the scheme is not an unconditional entitlement, but a conditional financial-support mechanism controlled by strict compliance and verification. 6.2. This Court observes that pursuant to the authority conferred by the 21.08.2023 Guidelines, the Director constituted a committee which conducted a surprise inspection on 07.02.2024. The inspection recorded serious irregularities, including: - substantial mismatch between the number of bovine animals claimed earlier and the number found during inspection; - absence of tagged animals; - non-availability of Form-5 register and other statutory documents; - absence of responsible staff at the Gaushala at the time of inspection. These deficiencies go to the root of the eligibility of the petitioner to receive public funds. 6.3. This Court finds that the sanction letter dated 16.01.2024 was premised on the earlier inspection of 25.09.2023. Once the surprise inspection revealed material discrepancies before the sanctioned amount was disbursed, the Director was well within his statutory authority to withhold the release of the amount by issuing the order dated 14.02.2024. The Guidelines, in light of the whole scheme, empower the Director to verify the genuineness of the figures and to halt disbursement until compliance is established. Disbursement of public funds without such verification would defeat the purpose of the regulatory framework. 6.4. The Guidelines, in light of the whole scheme, empower the Director to verify the genuineness of the figures and to halt disbursement until compliance is established. Disbursement of public funds without such verification would defeat the purpose of the regulatory framework. 6.4. This Court further finds that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the surprise inspection could not contradict the earlier report of 25.09.2023. The surprise inspection is a statutory and policy-mandated tool to verify continuing compliance, and its findings constitute material evidence casting doubt on the correctness of the earlier report. By holding that the earlier report must prevail unless expressly disproved, the learned Single Judge inadvertently nullified the verification powers expressly vested in the Director. 6.5. This Court observes that the order dated 14.02.2024 is not a punitive order but an administrative measure to withhold payment pending verification. At this stage of financial scrutiny, a pre- decisional personal hearing is not indispensable. Natural justice would be mandatory only at the stage of a final adverse order, such as cancellation, blacklisting or recovery. The learned Single Judge erred in treating a preventive withholding measure as if it were a penal action. 6.6. This Court finds that the scheme requires strict compliance, transparent records, and continuous verification. The surprise inspection revealed substantial irregularities, including absence of essential records, untagged animals, and mismatch in bovine count. In such circumstances, the appellants acted within their statutory authority in withholding disbursement to protect the exchequer. Directing the unconditional release of funds, despite such discrepancies, undermines the very objectives of the Guidelines and compromises the integrity of the public-funding process. 6.7. This Court therefore holds that the appellants were justified in withholding the sanctioned financial assistance dated 16.01.2024, and the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the order dated 14.02.2024 or in directing release of the withheld amount. The impugned order suffers from an erroneous appreciation of the scheme guidelines, the scope of administrative discretion, and the effect of subsequent inspection. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion contained hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4199/2024 cannot be sustained in law and on facts. The appellants were fully justified in withholding the sanctioned financial assistance pending verification, in exercise of the statutory and policy powers vested in them. 7.1. The appellants were fully justified in withholding the sanctioned financial assistance pending verification, in exercise of the statutory and policy powers vested in them. 7.1. Accordingly, the present Special Appeals are allowed . The impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside.