Retrospective circulars cannot exclude a pending application from a beneficial settlement scheme without clear enabling authority.

A dealer who had already obtained instalments could not be excluded from the Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojana, 2002 when the scheme and contemporaneous clarification contained no such exclusion, so the application had to be considered under the scheme. A later internal circular issued on 8 February 2002 could not be applied retrospectively to defeat an application filed earlier, because an administrative instruction cannot override the scheme or operate retrospectively without enabling authority. The rejection was therefore unsustainable and the application had to be decided on its merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a dealer who had been granted instalment could be denied the benefit of the Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojana, 2002 on the basis of a subsequent internal circular; (ii) whether the internal circular dated 8 February 2002 could be applied retrospectively to reject an application already filed under the scheme.

Issue (i): Whether a dealer who had been granted instalment could be denied the benefit of the Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojana, 2002 on the basis of a subsequent internal circular.

Analysis: The scheme was notified on 5 January 2002 and, on its terms and the contemporaneous departmental clarification, did not exclude cases where instalment had already been granted. The application under the scheme was filed on 24 January 2002 after deposit of the required amount, and the rejection was founded only on a later internal communication. As the application was otherwise within the scheme and there was no original exclusion for instalment cases, the authorities were required to consider it under the scheme.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to have the application considered under the scheme and could not be excluded merely because instalments had been granted.

Issue (ii): Whether the internal circular dated 8 February 2002 could be applied retrospectively to reject an application already filed under the scheme.

Analysis: The later circular was only an internal administrative instruction and was not shown to have been issued under any enabling power authorising retrospective operation. Subordinate legislation or delegated instructions cannot be given retrospective effect unless the parent statute so permits. Since the petitioner's application had been filed before the circular and the scheme then in force contained no such exclusion, the later instruction could not defeat the pending application.

Conclusion: The circular could not be applied retrospectively to reject the petitioner's application.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the scheme application was unsustainable, and the authorities were directed to accept and decide the application on its own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated instruction or subordinate administrative circular cannot be given retrospective effect to exclude an applicant from a beneficial scheme unless the enabling law expressly authorises such retrospective operation.

---