SBCWP NO.620/2008. SBCWP NO.576/2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.620/2008. M/s.Saurabh Agrotech Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.576/2008. M/s.Deepak Vegpro Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of order :- 24/1/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri S.Kasliwal for the petitioners. **** The petitioners have preferred these two writ petitions to challenge the notification dated 27/4/2005 Ann.4 by which provisions of Rule 58(4) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 was withdrawn by making necessary amendment. Petitioners’ further prayer in the writ petitions is that respondents be directed to continue the exemption granted to the petitioners for last several years. Challenge to the notification has been made mainly on two grounds. Firstly that withdrawal of the benefit as was existing under Rule 58(4) of the Rules of 1963 is against the very object of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Markets Act of 1961 and the second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that before making amendment in the rules by way of impugned notification, petitioners were not provided an opportunity of hearing. During the course of argument, learned counsel SBCWP NO.620/2008. SBCWP NO.576/2008. 2 for the petitioners was asked to show as to how the notification goes against the very object of the Act of 1961. In answer, it was given that the object as has been shown in the Act reveals that it was primarily for the support of the agriculturists. If that is so then petitioners being industrialists, the Act of 1961 is not for their benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not show that by bringing the amendment any object is being frustrated for which Act of 1961 and Rules of 1063 was brought. More so when straightway it was also asked by this Court that as to which provision of Act of 1961 shows it to the benefit of the industrialists, learned counsel for the petitioners could not show that Act of 1961 has been brought for the benefit of industrialists. No argument can be given in that regard because there exists no provision which can shows that Act of 1961 was brought for the benefit of industrialists. So far as the second argument is concerned, same pertains to the violation of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before bringing the amendment in the rules by way of notification impugned, the petitioners were required to be heard. In support of their case, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment given by this Court in the case of Sh.Mohta Dharamshala Trust, Bikaner Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. : 2003 W.L.C. (Raj.) U.C. 630. Perusal of the above judgment shows that after an exemption notified under sub-Sections (1) & (2) of SBCWP NO.620/2008. SBCWP NO.576/2008. 3 Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land & Building Tax Act, 1984, the government or the officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf had any time cancel or modify any order issued under sub-Section (1), power to cancel or modify the notification issued under sub- section (1) was very much exist with the State Government or the authority or the officer empowered on that behalf by the State Government. According to the Division Bench, before such power is exercised and any exemption of the tax under sub-section (1) of Section 21 to any class of lands or class of persons is cancelled or modified, legislation envisages that a reasonable opportunity of making representation against such cancellation is extended to the effected tax payer. Perusal of the judgment clearly reveals that necessary representation for providing opportunity of hearing is called for as is envisaged under Section 21(3) of the Land & Building Tax Act. Thus, aforesaid judgment was given by this Court after considering the provision of law applicable to that case. The case in hand does not contain such similar provisions in the Act of 1961 and Rules of 1963. Taking note of the provisions of the Act of 1961 it reveals that under Section 36 itself, the government is given power to make rules and accordingly, rules were made initially giving benefit of exemption to the petitioners and similarly situated persons in view of the provision then existing under Rule 58(4) of the Rules. However, looking to the competence or power of the government under Section 36 of the Rules of 1961, they can modify or amend the rules at any time and accordingly the impugned notification was issued to amend the rules and thereby the provisions of Rule 58(4) was withdrawn. SBCWP NO.620/2008. SBCWP NO.576/2008. 4 Such legislative competence is never made subject to doctrine of principle of natural justice. Hence, there is no substance even in the second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and otherwise the judgment referred to by the petitioners provides no assistance on the issue. In view of above, I do not find any force in the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed in limine. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil