Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1241
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Dhanwantri Gosevasharm Pathmeda, Sanchore & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4672/2018, 4454/2018, 4461/2018, 4462/2018, 4465/2018, 4466/2018, 4585/2018, 4586/2018, 4587/2018, 4588/2018, 4589/2018, 4671/2018, 4903/2018, 4904/2018, 4910/2018 and 4912/2018
Decided On : 28-06-2022
Jhamak Nagda and Manish Bhunwal for Saajan Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant
Salman Agha for A.K. Gaur, AAG, for the Respondents
Compliance with the specific conditions of a subsidy scheme is crucial for eligibility, and a misreading of such conditions can lead to the allowance of writ petitions.
Headnote:
Subsidy - Rajasthan Gaushala Act - 1960 - Condition No. 10(2) of the guidelines dated 01.05.2017 - The court discussed the provisions of the Rajasthan Gaushala Act, 1960 and the guidelines dated 01.05.2017, particularly focusing on Condition No. 10(2) which required the cattle feed to be purchased from RCDF/RAJFED or their appointed dealers. The court interpreted the condition and found that the petitioner complied with it by purchasing cattle feed from an authorized dealer of RAJFED, leading to the allowance of the writ petitions and a direction to the State Government to reconsider the subsidy applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a society operating a 'Gaushala', applied for a subsidy from the State Drought Relief Fund but was denied on the grounds of purchasing cattle feed from a private seller instead of RCDF/RAJFED.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner complied with the conditions of the subsidy scheme by purchasing cattle feed from an authorized dealer of RAJFED, and the denial of subsidy was a misreading of the relevant condition.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioner for subsidy under the guidelines dated 01.05.2017, particularly regarding the source of the purchased cattle feed and the number of cattle owned by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Condition No. 10(2) of the guidelines dated 01.05.2017, which required the cattle feed to be purchased from RCDF/RAJFED or their appointed dealers, and the finding that the petitioner complied with this condition.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the State Government was directed to reconsider the subsidy applications of the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Mehta, J. - As all the captioned petitions involve common questions of facts and law, they are being decided by the instant common order. However, for the purpose of clarity and brevity, the facts from SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4672/2018 : Shree Dhanwantri Gosevasharma Pathmeda v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are being taken into consideration.
2. The petitioner - Society is operating a 'Gaushala' and is having a registration certificate issued under Section 5 of Rajasthan Gaushala Act, 1960.
3. The Central Government has allocated a fund known as State Drought Relief Fund. For the purpose of granting subsidy/support the State Government issued detailed guideline dated 01.05.2017 for allowing relief fund to various Gaushalas.
4. Pursuant to the Order No. 4804-29 dated 01.05.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'guidelines dated 01.05.2017'), the petitioner - society applied for grant of subsidy.
5. Petitioner's request for grant of subsidy has been turned down by the State Government per-viam order dated 09.11.2017 inter alia observing that the petitioner has purchased the cattle feed from M/s. B.M. Cattle Feed & Agro Products, Jobner, Jhotwara, Jaipur and, therefore, is not entitled for the subsidy for the cattle feed purchased.
6. Mr. Nagda argued that the concerned scheme that the Central Government and State have promulgated are welfare scheme and hence, petitioner's rights cannot be denied on a hypertechnical ground that the cattle feed was purchased from a private seller - M/s. B.M. Cattle Feed & Agro Products, Jobner, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
7. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards dealer certificate (Annex.4) and submitted that said seller M/s. B.M. Cattle Feed & Agro Products, Jobner, Jhotwara, Jaipur is a registered and authorised dealer of cattle feed produced by Rajasthan State Cooperative Marking Federation Limited, commonly known as RAJFED.
8. Learned counsel asserted that the cattle feed, which the petitioner had procured, though has been procured from private entrepreneur namely M/s. B.M. Cattle Feed & Agro Products, Jobner, Jhotwara, Jaipur, but the said private entity is an authorised dealer of RAJFED itself and the cattle feed procured was manufactured by RAJFED and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied benefits of the subsidy.
9. Mr. Agha, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners' rights are to be governed by the guidelines issued by the State Government and merely because an ameliorative scheme has been promulgated by the State, petitioners cannot claim benefits, unless their cases fall squarely within the framework of the guidelines and they fulfil the requisite conditions enumerated therein.
10. While relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Radha Krishan Goshala & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : DB Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 902/20216 dated 04.07.2019, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a policy decision of the State to frame schemes according to the needs of the society and the Court cannot direct the State to grant subsidy to 'Gaushala', even if the 'Gaushala; does not comply with the conditions of the scheme/guidelines.
11. Mr. Agha further argued that the petitioners - Societies have less than 200 cattle and, therefore, are not entitled for the benefits of guideline dated 01.05.2017.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
13. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that petitioners have been denied subsidy by the State Government in light of Condition No. 10(2) of the guidelines dated 01.05.2017.
14. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apt to reproduce the above referred condition of the guidelines dated 01.05.2017:
15. A simple look at the above quoted condition of the guidelines shows that the policy in unambiguous terms provides that the subsidy/concession shall be payable only in cases where the cattle feed which has bee
