Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 232

Orders/Judgments

January 2024

Writ Petition Against Charge-Sheet Not Maintainable Unless Issued By Authority Not Competent To Initiate Disciplinary Action: Rajasthan HC

Title: Laxman Singh Gurjar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & 2 Ors.

Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 1

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a driver of a public transport seeking quashing of a charge-sheet which was served upon him by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation with the allegation that certain passengers were found traveling without ticket on the ground that writ petition generally does not lie against the charge-sheet unless it is established that the same had been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed:

“…the Government is not precluded from initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee for violation of conduct rules even if the alleged misconduct took place while performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions. In the present case, the charge-sheet clearly indicates that the petitioner while discharging duties had acted negligently and misused his post amounting to misconduct or violation of the Conduct Rules.”

Minor Rape Victims Entitled To Compensation For Incidents Prior To Introduction Of S.357A CrPC If Claim Petition Filed Before 2009: Rajasthan HC

Title: G.K v. State of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 2

Rajasthan High Court clarified recently that minor rape victims can avail the benefit of the amended provision in Section 357A of CrPC, even if the alleged incident occurred before the amendment in 2009.

While partly allowing the writ petition filed by the father of the victim girl who was subjected to rape at the age of two years, the court ordered that the State must compensate the victim with an amount of Rs 3,00,000/- as stipulated in the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011, framed pursuant to the enactment of Section 357A CrPC.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further added that the general mandamus issued in this case would only apply to all those victims who presented a claim in this regard to the competent authorities prior to the amendment in 2009.

Once Deduction Claim Of Education Cess Is Withdrawn, Assessee Immuned From Imposition Of Section 270A Penalty: Rajasthan High Court

Title: G R Infraprojects Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 3

The Rajasthan High Court held that once the deduction claim for education cess is withdrawn, the assessee is immune from the imposition of a penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act.

The bench of Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Munnuri Laxman has observed that neither in the assessment order nor in the subsequent show-cause notices, the Assessing Officer specify that the case of the petitioner-company is covered under which part of Section 270A(9). Even in the order, it is not specified which part of Section 270A(9) is attracted.

Dept.'s Action Denying Immunity Benefit Merely Because Section 270A Penalty Was Initiated Is Erroneous: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited Versus Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 4

The Rajasthan High Court held that the department's action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act for misreporting of income is not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason, as in the penalty notice, the respondents have failed to specify the limb, "under-reporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which the penalty proceedings had been initiated.

The bench of Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Shubha Mehta has observed that the Deputy Commissioner violated the provisions of proviso to Section 270AA (4) by not providing any opportunity of hearing, the order passed was wholly laconic, it did not indicate as to under which part of Section 270A (9), the case of the petitioner was covered, and the revisional authority, without giving any cogent reasons, has in a wholly cursory manner indicated the case of the petitioner was within the ambit of Clauses (a) and (c) of Section 270A (9).

Rajasthan High Court Allows State To Withdraw Prosecution Against Protesting MLAs, Says They Were Only Espousing Public Cause

Title: State Of Rajasthan, Through Government Advocate v. Narendra Meghwal & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 5

Rajasthan High Court allowed the State government to withdraw criminal prosecution against four members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and one Ex-MLA, pending before the Ramganj Mandi judicial magistrate for unlawful assembly.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that the accused politicians were merely raising the reasonable demands of the public at large during the protest.

Concurring with the submissions made by the Additional Advocate General, the bench sitting at Jaipur inferred that there was no personal interest of the accused respondents involved in the agitation.

Rajasthan High Court Provides Police Protection To Woman Who Was Detained By Father, Upholds Her Right To Stay With Transgender Partner

Title: X v. State of Rajasthan Through P.P & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 6

In a habeas corpus plea filed by a transgender man, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the right of a cis-gender woman to live with her partner of choice.

Upon production of the woman before the Court, she stated that her father had been illegally detaining her in his house and torturing her.

The Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Bhuwan Goyal, after interacting with the woman, ordered that she may be taken to the place of her choice with police protection for aid.

S.138 NI Act | Primary Concern Is Recovery Of Money, Conviction Of Accused Serves Little Purpose: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Lakhani Builders Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 7

Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the punishment on the drawer for a dishonoured cheque is secondary as far as Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned. The court added that the primary concern would be the recovery of money since the conviction of an accused serves no significant purpose.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman, while quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against a real estate company and its directors, pointed out that the complainants have already received the amount equivalent to the dishonoured cheque via RTGS transactions in two separate installments.

Landlord Best Person To Decide Property For 'Bonafide Use', Tenant Can't Resist Eviction Stating Other Properties More Suitable: Rajasthan HC

Title: Chain Singh Gehlot v. Sushila Parihar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 8

The Rajasthan High Court upheld an order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur which allowed an eviction appeal filed by a widow (landlord) against her tenant on the ground that mere existence of other properties which are levied by the landlord would not enure to benefit of tenant in the absence of any supporting material to effect that they are reasonably suitable for the tenant to run her business.

The single judge bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati observed:

“…the bonafide necessity of the respondent is to be decided by herself and even if alternate premises are available, then also it is for the landlord/respondent to choose a more suitable premise for carrying on the business by herself and the petitioner cannot dictate as to from which premise she should start the business.”

Pran Pratishtha Mahotsava | Real Celebration Would Be If Society Respects & Follows Lord Ram's Ideals: Rajasthan HC In Suo Moto PIL Over Road Blockage

 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 9

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur registered a suo moto PIL concerning the blockage of the road and installation of barricades on the advent of “Pran Pratishtha Mahotsava.”

The single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta directed the District Collector and Commissioner of Police to ensure that in the future the roads, particularly the roads leading towards the High Court, are not blocked in the name of any 'julus', 'dharna' and religious celebrations.

“The real celebration would be if the society respects and follows the ideal and virtues which Lord 'Ram'embodied and is worshiped as an ideal person – 'Maryada Puroshottam Ram',” Justice Mehta said.

'Fully Developed Foetus Has Right To Life': Rajasthan High Court Denies Minor Rape Survivor's Plea To Terminate 31-Weeks Pregnancy

Title: Victim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors

Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 10

Stating that a fully developed foetus has the right to life guaranteed under Article 21, Rajasthan High Court declined a plea for the medical termination of an 11-year-old rape survivor's advanced pregnancy.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also clarified that a foetus that is fully developed has the right to enter this world and live a healthy life without any abnormalities. Concurring with the report of the Medical Board, the bench sitting at Jaipur observed that termination of pregnancy is not advisable at all in a stage where the foetus has a fully formed brain and lungs, along with heartbeats.

Though the State and the petitioner urged the court to allow the delivery of the minor survivor immediately through the process of inducing labour, the court refused to grant such a relief.

'Hostile Discrimination': Rajasthan HC Quashes Municipal Chairperson's Suspension Order Upon Noting Similar Charges Against SDO & EO Were Dropped

Title: Satish Kumar Duhariya S/o Late Shri Moolchand v. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Local Self Government Department & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 11

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a suspension order against Rajgarh's Municipal Chairman, which was still in force despite revoking suspensions of the Sub Divisional Officer and Executive Officer against whom similar chargesheets were issued pursuant to an encroachment removal drive in contravention of regulations under the Municipalities Act.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that the respondent state authorities have acted in a colourable exercise of their powers while deciding to keep the suspension order of the Chairman intact for an indefinite period.

Duty Of Courts To Correct Decree Obtained By Concealment Of Material Facts, Leave To Appeal May Be Filed At Any Stage: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ajeet Singh & Ors. v. Smt. Kailash Kanwar & Ors and connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 12

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that no litigant can obtain a favourable decree from a court based on incorrect or false facts. Since fraud unravels everything, the concerned court must correct the mistake in facts if brought to its notice, it added.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also held that if the respondents claim to be the grandchildren of one of the co-sharers of the land, then the veracity of such assertions shall be decided by the trial court.

“… The basic idea is that no polluted hand shall touch the pure fountain of justice… If it is the case of the respondents that the deceased khatedar – Fakira did not die issueless, then the trial Court is supposed to decide the material aspects whether he died issueless or not after recording the evidence of both sides”, the bench sitting at Jaipur noted in the order after denoting the legal maxim Actus Legis Nemeniest Damnosus' which roughly translates to 'an act of law shall prejudice no man'.

Lok Adalat Has No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Disputes Related To Installation Of Mobile Tower: Rajasthan HC Grants Relief To Reliance Jio

Title: Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. v. Dr. Harish Agrawal & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 13

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur set aside an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur which issued a direction to the authorities to seize the mobile tower, installed at a site and dismantle the same within 15 days, on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters as the same is not covered by the definition of 'public utility service' under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed:

“After perusal of the definition clause of “public utility service” and the judgments of Patna High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute related to installation of mobile tower is not covered by the definition of “public utility service”, as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987, therefore, the PLA has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters and the PLA cannot entertain such complaints.”

'Frivolous': Rajasthan High Court Imposes 25K Cost On Plea Against Appointment Of Dy. Chief Ministers

Title: Om Prakash Solanki v. Special Secretary His Excellency Governor Of The State of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 14

In a PIL filed by a lawyer against the swearing-in of Diya Kumari and Prem Chand Bairwa as the Deputy Chief Ministers, Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000/- on the petitioner, citing the frivolous nature of the relief sought.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta termed the case filed by Om Prakash Solanki as a classic example of a frivolous petition filed to gain cheap publicity. The court strongly felt that the petition was filed without proper research or awareness about the settled proposition of law.

NMC Act | MARB Lacks Competency To Retrospectively Cancel Admissions Granted By Medical Institutions: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital v. The Union of India & Ors.& Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 15

In a recent decision, Rajasthan High Court rebuked the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) for cancelling the admissions made to four medical colleges retrospectively, thereby jeopardizing the careers of the students involved.

The single-judge bench of Justice Arun Monga discussed Section 26(1) (f) and 26 (2) to hold that MARB lacks the jurisdiction to direct retrospective cancellation of admissions made to medical institutions; it can only recommend to the National Medical Commission (NMC) that admissions may be disallowed/ reduced prospectively.

“…Statutory words “reducing intake or stoppage of admissions” in sub-section 26(1)(f) cannot be interpreted to mean that intake can be reduced retrospectively or admissions once granted can be stopped retrospectively. For, that would result in consequences fraught with danger and play havoc with the career of students, who are otherwise meritorious in all respects…”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur noted in the order.

February 2024

Rajasthan HC Denies Parole To Asaram Bapu Convicted In Rape Case; Cites Bar On Release Under 2021 Parole Rules, Possible Law & Order Situation

Title: Asha Ram @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 16

Rajasthan High Court refused to grant 20 days parole to self-styled godman Asaram Bapu, who is currently serving a life sentence in Central Jail, Jodhpur after two rape convictions in Rajasthan and Gujarat respectively.

The District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur (DPAC) had rejected his application for the first grant of parole on 22.08.2023. Before that, another application was rejected by DPAC on 20.06.2023.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Rajendra Prakash Soni concurred with DPAC's decision to deny parole since such an application could not be accepted under Rule 1 (3) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes POCSO Case On Being Informed Of Victim's Marriage With Accused

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 17

Rajasthan High Court decided to rescind criminal proceedings against a POCSO accused, after being informed that the victim/survivor is living a happily married life with the former.

Before quashing the rape case ongoing before Jaipur Metropolitan I Special Judge (POCSO), the single judge bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal observed that the survivor herself has stated before the court about the marriage between her and the accused.

“From the material available on record, it is established that the petitioner and the respondent no.3 have solemnized marriage and are living a happily married life with a three-year-old girl child born out of their relationship. The parties are present in the court and this court has also verified the aforesaid…”, the bench sitting at Jaipur added.

Subsequent Purchaser/Donee May Be Impleaded As Parties In Suit For Specific Performance To Avoid Multiplicity Of Litigation: Rajasthan HC

Title: Harish Kumar v. Usha Devi & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 18

Noting that the subsequent purchaser may be allowed to participate in a suit for specific performance of a contract, the Rajasthan High Court allowed impleading the donor and donee in a gift deed, with regards to the same suit property, executed after the agreement for sale and filing of the suit.

A single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the trial court should have allowed the application made by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The bench sitting at Jaipur also opined that the trial court should have allowed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the original suit.

[Army Act & Rules] Even If Charges Are Not Confirmed During Court-Martial Proceedings, Erring Officials Can Be Independently Proceeded Against: Rajasthan HC

Title: Gyan Bahadur Chhetri & Anr v. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 19

Rajasthan High Court held that if findings on a certain charge are not affirmed by the Confirming Authority after General Court-Martial (GCM) proceedings, the Chief of Army Staff and other officers are vested with the power to proceed independently against the erring personnel for termination of services.

“…This Court also observes that only the finding and sentence on second charge was confirmed, which attained finality, but on count of non-confirmation of the finding on the first charge not attaining the finality, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in law”, the single-judge bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati noted in the judgment.

Widowed Daughter-In Law Also Part Of Family, Can Seek Compassionate Appointment Under 1996 Rules: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Smt. Durga Devi Mairda v. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 20

In a pertinent decision, Rajasthan High Court held that a 'widowed-daughter-law' comes within the meaning of 'widowed daughter' mentioned as a 'Dependent' in Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.

The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni was of the opinion that purposive interpretation has to be relied upon to assess the legislative intent behind such laws.

“….while upholding the judgment rendered…in the case of Smt. Pinki (supra), for arriving at a final conclusion on the issue, is thus answered in the manner that the said term 'dependent' includes 'widowed daughter-in-law' in the term 'widowed daughter', while emphasizing the need for the State to provide solace to the survivors of the family under bereavement, whose plight is writ large, by giving appointment to the widowed daughter-in-law”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur noted in the judgment.

Petitioner Underwent Sterilisation Based On Promises Of 'Jyoti Yojna', State's Breach Of Promise Violates Principles Of Legitimate Expectation: Rajasthan HC

Title: Smt. Vandana W/o Bajrang Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 21

Rajasthan High Court directed the State through a writ of mandamus to provide the benefits of the 'Jyoti Yojna' Scheme to every woman who has voluntarily undergone a sterilisation operation after giving birth to one or two children.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the scheme introduced in 2011 was originally intended to empower the females that fall within the aforementioned category; therefore, it must be implemented effectively.

“…both the principle of “legitimate expectation” and the “principle of estoppel” weigh heavily in favour of upholding the Government's promises under the “Jyoti Yojna” Scheme. To do otherwise would not only be legally questionable but would also be morally unjust, as it would leave individuals who acted in good faith without the support they were led to expect…”, the bench sitting at Jaipur said adding that the Government should have honoured its commitments and obligations under the scheme to ensure accountability in governance.

Electricity Dept Played Pivotal Role In Fight Against Covid: Rajasthan High Court Grants 70 Lakhs Ex-Gratia Payment To Deceased Employee's Wife

Title: Sugan Prajapat W/o Late Shri Megha Ram Prajapat v. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing Director & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 22

Rajasthan High Court directed Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam (JdVVNL) Ltd to disburse the ex-gratia amount of Rs 70 Lakhs to the dependent an executive engineer who succumbed to Covid-19 while working on duty.

The single-judge bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed in the judgment that the petitioner-wife's husband, who was an executive engineer, played an instrumental role in ensuring the continuous supply of electricity to Covid Care Centres.

“…the pandemic was a time of terror… to ensure the smooth functioning of the Health Sector various other departments of the Government were involved, one of them being the Electricity Department which played a pivotal role in ensuring the continuous supply of electricity to Hospitals and Quarantine Centres/Covid Care Centres, and thus, the personnel belonging to that department played an equally important role in the collective fight against the Covid 19 Virus”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur opined.

Pattas Obtained By Fraud Or Concealment Do Not Confer Any Right, Limitation Not A Bar For Cancellation Of Such Land Assignments: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Peer Mohamad & Ors since deceased now being represented through legal representatives v. The State of Rajasthan, through Tehsildar Phagi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 23

Rajasthan High Court recently iterated that if a patta has been obtained by fraud or concealment, there lies no bar of limitation to cancel such allotment.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner's father has not conferred any right or title since the authorities found out that such allotment was illegal on account of misrepresentation of facts.

The allotment, in in the instant case, was cancelled based on recommendations made by the 'Beri Commission' in the case of the petitioner's father as well as other similarly placed individuals. Beri Commission was constituted by the Government to examine such allotments marred by fraudulent activities of recipients.

S. 24 JJ Act | Right To Be Forgotten By Destruction Of Juvenile Delinquency Records Is Absolute Right, State Forbidden From Seeking Such Records: Rajasthan HC

Title: Jitendra Meena v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 24

Rajasthan High Court held that the 'right to be forgotten' by the destruction of juvenile delinquency records is an absolute right if the juvenile has been extended the benefits of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The single-judge bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while delivering the judgment in a plea against cancellation of public employment due to juvenile delinquency, also restrained the state from seeking information from individuals in the future about their previous criminal antecedents as a juvenile, wherever Section 24 has been made applicable.

“the State…. are hereby lawfully restrained from seeking any information, in future, from the then juvenile about the previous record/information of his juvenile delinquency in cases where the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 has been extended…”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur underscored the necessity of taking such steps to avoid adverse impact on the future prospects of juvenile delinquents who seek employment.

'Deemed Universities' Restrained From Offering Distance Programs Through Off-Campus Private Franchises Under UGC Regulations: Rajasthan HC

Title: Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, (IASE) v. Union Of India & Ors. a/w Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 25

Rajasthan High Court, in a landmark judgment, reiterated the applicability of certain notices/circulars and guidelines issued by UGC and Distance Education Counsel (DEC), that restrained deemed to be universities from setting up off-campus centres and imparting education through distance mode.

A single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a batch of pleas filed by the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE) and Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (JRN) seeking recognition of various courses/degrees/ diplomas awarded by those 'deemed universities' through distance mode. While delivering the judgment, the court has also asked both institutions to refund the entire fees to students enrolled in courses, off-campus study centres and distance education without UGC's approval.

S.321 CrPC | Public Prosecutor Not State's Postman, Withdrawal Of Prosecution Can't Be Done On Mere Asking Of Executive: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Mubarak @ Salman v. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 26

In a recent decision, Rajasthan High Court made a string of remarks about when an application to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 CrPC can be made. The court has also delved deep into the duty of the public prosecutor to prevent abuse of the process of law in such instances.

The single-judge bench of Justice Farjand Ali also observed that Section 321 CrPC provides an overwhelming pertinence to the discretion of a Public Prosecutor and his role, as an officer of the court, in withdrawal from prosecution.

“…It is expected rather incumbent upon him to frame a plausible reasoning being a law officer having legal knowledge as to what could be done and what not. Here, the Public Prosecutor shall not act as a mere postman or a State Government employee following the orders as directed to him by his executive/appointing authority…” the bench sitting at Jodhpur noted since the inalienable duty of the public prosecutor is to assist the court and ensure free trial.

REET Paper Leak Case | Prima Facie Evidence Suggests Offence Of Money Laundering: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Accused

Title: Ram Kripal Meena v. Director Of Enforcement

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 27

Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Ram Kripal Meena, primarily accused of leaking and distributing question papers of the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021 (REET) for a payment of Rs 1.20 crores.

The single judge bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar noted that 1.06 crores, cited by the prosecution as the 'proceeds of crime', was allegedly first received by the petitioner from two other accused in exchange for question papers. Later, this amount was recovered from eight other people as per the information received from the accused himself. Looking into the gravity of the offence and the pendency of investigation under Section 173 CrPC, the bench sitting at Jaipur deemed it fit to deny bail.

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Compensation For Death By Stray Bull Attack, Pulls Up Bikaner Municipal Corp For "Animals Wandering In Streets"

Title: Municipal Corporation, Bikaner & Anr. v. Dhanna Ram & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 28

While affirming the Permanent Lok Adalat's grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs for death caused by a stray bull, Rajasthan High Court has fastened the responsibility of wandering stray animals on Bikaner Municipal Corporation.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur held that Section 22-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 contemplates that 'public utility service' includes 'a system of public conservancy or sanitation'. Relying on this definition, the bench sitting at Jodhpur noted that Lok Adalat was right in holding the Corporation responsible for the payment of compensation to the husband and children of the deceased.

“….since the petitioners have failed to discharge their duties for removal of the garbage and eatables from the streets resulting into the stray animals wandering on the streets, the Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction in the wake of Section 22A (b) (iv) of the Act of 1987 to deal with the matter and has correctly adjudicated the application…”, the court observed while upholding the Lok Adalat's decision to rely on Section 22-C(8) of the 1987 Act [deciding the dispute not related to an offence if no settlement between parties] and grant compensation.

Rajasthan HJS Evaluation Process Challenged, High Court Orders Expert Committee To Re-Evaluate Copies And Submit Report

Title: Nisha Gaur & Ors. v. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr & Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 29

In response to a controversy on the process of evaluation adopted in the Mains Examination for Direct Recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge, Rajasthan High Court proposed the constitution of an expert committee comprising eminent jurists/professors for re-evaluation of the answer sheets.

The Division Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Bhuwan Goyal deemed it fit to direct the Examination Cell of the High Court for the constitution of the said committee. Out of 85 candidates who appeared in the Mains Exam, only 4 candidates had qualified for the interview, allegedly a result of unnecessarily strict marking criteria.

“…The Expert Committee would pick up 20 copies of each paper randomly and shall examine and evaluate the same and while evaluating the answer-sheets, the Expert Committee will be free to take into consideration the length of the paper and the time provided for answering the questions…”, the court noted in the order with regards to the four papers that the candidates should qualify in the Limited Competitive Exam.

Lawyers Required To Maintain Restraint, Shouldn't Cast Aspersions On Judicial Officers When Judicial Orders Are Challenged: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Babulal S/o Gebaji v. Shri Mahaveer Jain Swetamber Pedhi(Trust)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 30

Deprecating the practice of casting aspersions on judicial officers when judicial orders are challenged, Rajasthan High Court urged all lawyers to maintain restraint and not make allegations against a presiding officer in the pleadings.

The single-judge bench of Dr Justice Nupur Bhati held that even if there is a complaint against the presiding officer before the Chief Justice, the rights of the bar or that of the individual lawyers cannot become grounds for pleading on the judicial side. The lawyers should rather focus on the relevant provisions and facts of the case to obtain a favourable order, the court opined.

“…. Casting aspersions on the Judicial Officers is a practice which is required to be severely depreciated particularly when the judicial orders are challenged. Critical analysis of a judgment in right perspective has to be appreciated but casting allegations upon a Judge if allowed would hit at the root of the system of justice”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur observed after noting the nature of allegations levelled against District Judge, Jalore.

Alternate Remedy Available, No Exceptional Circumstance Made Out: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea For Minor Son's Custody

Title: Dharmendra Choudhary v. The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary- Home Department & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 31

Rajasthan High Court clarified that habeas corpus petitions in custody disputes of children are usually not maintainable when an alternative remedy under the statute is available and the custody dispute has been persisting for quite a long time.

“…ordinarily, in relation to a claim for custody of a child, there is effective remedy provided under the Statute, in which the detailed inquiry is to be conducted and final conclusion is to be arrived at while keeping into consideration, in particular, the welfare of a minor child… custody issues which exist for a long period of time, as involved herein, may not be dealt with, in habeas corpus petition, except under certain extraordinary circumstances.”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur observed while delivering the judgment.

The Division Bench comprising Dr Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that habeas corpus petitions are maintainable only in 'exceptional circumstances' and would include instances where illegal detention of the minor child is proved substantially. However, the court noted that the petitioner and his wife were living separately for quite some time soon after the birth of their son. After the wife died in 2023, the child had been living with his maternal grandparents. Such a situation doesn't warrant the court's exercise of powers under Article 226, the Division Bench held.

Income Tax Act | Non-Disclosure Of Heavy Transaction & Its Admission By Assessee Makes Out A Case For Reassessment U/S 148: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Mahaveer Jain v. Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 32

Rajasthan High Court clarified that once the assessee admits the existence of a heavy transaction between him and another entity that is not disclosed in the ITR form, such admission makes out a case for the reopening of assessment under Section 148.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman further noted that such admitted non-disclosure in 2019-20 denotes that the transactional amount in dispute is effectively income that has escaped assessment in the relevant year.

“…Non-disclosure of heavy transaction by the petitioner with Allbright Electricals Pvt. Ltd., in the ITR/Audit and the same having been made a basis to reopen assessment by issuing notice under Section 148, cannot be termed as arbitrary, whimsical or perverse, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur observed in the order.

No Provision For Review Under Rajasthan Colonisation Act But Supplemental Provisions In Other Statutes May Be Invoked To Exercise Power: High Court

Title: Shiv Ratan v. State of Rajasthan Through Colonisation Officers & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 33

Rajasthan High Court held that an Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) was right in entertaining an application filed for the review of its own order, albeit under Section 151 CPC, by a comprehensive interpretation of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, before rendering the decision, initially analysed Section 5 [Applicability of tenancy and land revenue laws to tenancies held and proceedings conducted under the Act] of the 1954 Act. The bench sitting at Jodhpur then drew the conclusion that when there is no relevant provision in the 1954 Act, the officer can resort to supplemental provisions in other statutes such as Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

No Inquiry Or Recovery Proceedings Can Be Initiated Against Legal Representatives Of Deceased Person: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Nand Lal Raigar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 34

Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that no recovery proceedings can be initiated against the legal representatives of a deceased person, after death, since all connections to worldly affairs are broken upon the death of a person.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand clarified that inquiry against the deceased would abate upon such death, and no other person can be substituted in his place and asked to defend the conduct of the deceased.

“…No disputed amount can be recovered from the legal representatives of the deceased person until and unless any enquiry is conducted against the deceased and the same cannot be done now because the petitioners were not aware about the irregularities or illegalities committed by their mother”, the bench sitting at Jaipur observed.

Law Doesn't Bar Benefit Of Probation To Convict Above 21 Yrs Age: Rajasthan HC Releases 'Attempt To Murder' Convicts On Probation In 33 Yrs Old Case

Title: Nawal Kishore & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 35

Rajasthan High Court ordered the release of two persons on probation, previously convicted by the trial court for attempt to murder, after observing that emphasis must be placed on reformation and rehabilitation of offenders.

The single-judge bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena added that there is no bar under law to extend the benefit of probation to a convict aged above 21 years. The bench sitting at Jaipur also took note of the satisfactory conduct of the convicts and the lack of criminal antecedents ever since the suspension of their sentence in 1993. About the Probation of Offenders Act, 1954, the judge stated in the order as below:

“…the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved.”

Caught 'Red-Handed' Accepting Bribe, Dishonest Official Deserves No Sympathy: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Suspension Order Of Sarpanch

Title: Sanjay Sukhwal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 36

While upholding the suspension order of a Sarpanch allegedly caught accepting a bribe, Rajasthan High Court remarked that a dishonest official deserves no sympathy or leniency.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur noted that the facts disclosed in the F.I.R. registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act were unambiguous. No further fact-finding preliminary enquiry was required as contemplated in Rule 22 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 to proceed against the delinquent Sarpanch under Section 38 [Removal & Suspension] of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the court clarified.

Rajasthan High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Ayurvedic Doctors Before It Who Retired At 60 Yrs Age But Are Yet To Turn 62 Yrs

Title: Dr. Mahendra Singh Jakhar & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. and Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 37

While adjudicating a batch of writ petitions filed by Ayurvedic doctors, Rajasthan High Court held that those doctors before it who have been superannuated on account of turning 60 years of age must be reinstated if they haven't attained 62 years of age by now.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Bhuwan Goyal also noted that one of the petitioner doctors who retired after 31.03.2016 will be deemed to have continued in service till he attained 62 years of age. The court also iterated that those petitioners who haven't been superannuated by now will continue in service till they attain the age of 62 years.

March 2024

Victim Will Be Reminded Of The Incident She Is Trying Hard To Forget, Rajasthan HC Holds POCSO Convict Can't Serve Parole In Victim's Village

Title: Moti Ram V. State of Rajasthan, Home Department & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 38

While directing a POCSO convict not to enter the village where the victim resides for the duration of parole granted, Rajasthan High Court opined that the absence of such a safeguard will adversely affect the mental well-being of the survivor/victim.

The Division Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that if the victim were to face the convict during parole, he/she would be forced to revisit the trauma caused by the convict. The court also added that such a scenario would remind the victim of the incident she is trying hard to forget.

“The Court is mindful of the legislative intent of the POCSO Act which provides that the contact between the accused and the victim should be prevented in order to minimise the trauma experienced by the child…”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur noted in the order.

Have No Superintendence Over NCDRC Which Is Situated In Delhi: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rajeev Chaturvedi v. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 39

Recently, a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court, citing lack of jurisdiction, set aside the decision rendered by its single-judge bench quashing the orders of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

The Division Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Bhuwan Goyal held that the single judge bench of the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 227 [Power of Superintendence over all courts within its territorial jurisdiction] challenging the NCDRC orders dated 14.06.2022 and 13.04.2022.

“…the impugned orders challenged in the writ petition have been passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi, over which Rajasthan High Court does not have superintendence under Article 227 of Constitution of India, therefore, in our considered view, the present writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India was not maintainable before the Rajasthan High Court”, the bench sitting at Jaipur noted.

Seeds & Leaves Without Flowering Tops Not 'Ganja' As Per NDPS Act, Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To Accused Claiming To Be Bhang Contractor

Title: Rajesh Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan Through PP

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 40

While granting bail to an accused claiming to be a 'Bhang' contractor, Rajasthan High Court iterated that the definition clause of NDPS Act contemplates only the 'flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plants' within the definition of 'Ganja'.

The single-judge bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar allowed the bail application under Section 439 CrPC. Leaves of the cannabis plant weighing 28.600 gms were shown to be recovered from the accused by the Police.

“…Section 2 (iii)(b) of the NDPS Act contains the definition of Ganja…The seeds and leaves without tops are not termed as Ganja…Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail”, the bench sitting at Jaipur noted and directed the accused to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Can Candidates Change Category Amid Ongoing Recruitment Process If Visited By Widowhood Or Handicap: Rajasthan HC Refers Question To Larger Bench

Title: Sangeeta Joshi v. The Rajasthan High Court At Jodhpur & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 41

Rajasthan High Court referred to a larger bench the question regarding legal viability of a candidate changing her category to a special category in the middle of a recruitment process, upon being visited by a misfortune caused by the 'act of god' post the submission of the application form.

A Division Bench of Dr Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas noted the decision made by a co-ordinate bench of the court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Jagdish Prasad & Anr.(2016). In Jagdish Prasad, the court had held that an individual benefit to the party in the form of permitting a change of category after the last date for application submissions would make 'justice individualised which again would be anathema to the law and the Constitution'.

Can't Condone Lethargic Attitude Of Petitioner Who 'Slept Over' His Rights: Rajasthan HC Declines Plea To Get Land 52 Yrs After Auction

Title: Rajendra Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 42

Deprecating the practice of seeking relief through writ petitions after the lapse of several years without satisfactory explanation, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea regarding the deposit of the balance amount for an auction that occurred 52 years ago.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand iterated that courts have usually discouraged entertaining writ petitions barred by delay and laches. In this case, 1/4^th of the auction amount was deposited by the petitioner under an auction conducted by respondent authorities in 1972. After the lapse of 18 years, when he tried to deposit the balance amount via a demand draft in 1990, the respondents refused to accept the same citing Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules 1974.

[Rajasthan Colonisation Rules] Eligibility In 'Landless Category' Depends On Individual Applicant's Holdings, Land Held By Spouse Immaterial: High Court

Title: Smt. Raj Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors and Smt Sua Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 43

While overturning the decisions of the Colonisation Commissioner and Board of Revenue cancelling the land allotments made to two women, the Rajasthan High Court clarified that eligibility for the 'landless category' depends on the applicant's individual land holdings. Grant of land under Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area), Rules, 1975 should not be influenced by the extent of land owned by husbands, the bench sitting at Jodhpur added.

A single-judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur also noted that Rule 2(1) (xiii) of the 1975 Rules which defines a 'landless person' eligible for a grant of land requires the sole examination of whether the applicant before the authority has land holdings or not. Previously, the Commissioner (Colonisation), Bikaner had cancelled land allotments already made under Rule 13-A of the 1975 Rules on the ground that both applicants did not fall within the category of 'landless persons'.

S.73 Evidence Act | Tribunal Didn't Examine Admitted & Disputed Voters' Signatures Before Setting Aside Election: Rajasthan HC Upholds Gangani Sarpanch Election Results

Title: Bhanwar Lal Bhadu v. Ved Prakash & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 44

Noting that Section 73 of the Evidence Act has been disregarded by the election tribunal to examine signatures in the voters register before setting aside the Sarpanch election for Gangani Panchayath, the Rajasthan High Court underscored that the election petitioner failed to prove that the same set of voters had cast votes at two separate places.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur opined that mere comparison of signatures in the Original Voters Registers for Wards 10 & 12 by one's eyes without resorting to Section 73 of the Evidence Act vitiates the findings recorded by Election Tribunal.

“… The persons who made those signatures were neither confronted nor their admitted signatures were compared with the signatures which are in dispute and, therefore, arriving at such conclusion that these signatures have been made by those persons whose names have been deleted from Ward No.10 in the opinion of this Court, is not just, proper and correct”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur observed.

Economic Offences Need A Different Approach: Rajasthan High Court Declines Bail Over Inadmissible Input Tax Credit Worth 1032 Crores

Title: Ashutosh Garg v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 45

Rajasthan High Court refused to grant bail to a person who is accused of operating nearly 294 fake firms for the purpose of passing inadmissible input tax credit worth Rs. 1,032 crores fraudulently.

The court also emphasised that economic offences create a huge loss to the public exchequer, which demands that such 'white collar crimes' be considered as grave offences affecting the 'economy of the nation as a whole'.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also dwelled on 'white collar criminals' pocketing a large chunk of money earmarked for developmental projects in the country.

“…During last few decades, our Country has seen the execution of various plannings involving huge expenditure by the Government for various nation-building activities. The corrupt officers, businessmen and contractors never had been so good in making their true contribution in the development works of the nation. No doubt the country did make some progress…”, the court opined that even though there has been progress, the illegal activities of such criminals have resulted in a huge loss of crores of rupees.

Police Service Rules | Candidates Who Met Advertised Fitness Criteria Can't Be Rendered Ineligible By Subsequent Amendment During Selection Process: Rajasthan HC

Title: The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Home Department, Jaipur & Ors v. Aashish Kumar S/o Kalu Ram and Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 46

By highlighting the principle that the rules of a game can't be changed once it has begun, a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court has upheld a single-judge bench's decision to nullify the ineligibility accrued by a few candidates on account of a subsequent amendment to the applicable rules.

The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman was adjudicating an issue that arose when a few candidates hailing from tribal areas were rendered ineligible for not meeting physical fitness requirements as a result of a subsequent amendment to Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989.

'Travesty Of Justice' If Non-Cultivable Land Is Allotted To A Farmer: Rajasthan High Court Orders Regularisation Of Exchanged Land

Title: Dungar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 47

Rajasthan High Court allowed the exchange of a piece of non-cultivable land wrongly allotted to a farmer with cultivable land which was already in his possession for over 50 years, to avoid the 'travesty of justice' and honour the true intention behind Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

While allowing the regularisation of land via exchange as sought by the petitioner agriculturalist, the single-judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur quashed the 2021 order of Collector, Jaisalmer. The bench sitting at Jodhpur opined that the officer did not give due regard to Section 101 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

“…it will be travesty of justice if the exchange of land is not permitted in the present case as the petitioner has made a Banjar and non-cultivable land into a cultivable land by his hard work, dedication and commitment in last 50 years, all his efforts will go in vain…” the single-judge bench noted in the order.

[Prevention Of Corruption Cases] Special Court Can Issue Suo Moto Directions For Further Investigation: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chetram v. State of Rajasthan through PP

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 48

Rajasthan High Court held that the Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Cases) at Alwar was empowered to issue suo moto directions for further investigation while dismissing an application preferred by the Anti-Corruption Bureau under Section 169 Cr. P.C. on the ground of refusal of prosecution sanction.

The special court had specifically directed ACB to inquire about the role of the Chairman of Alwar Diary, Bannaram Meena, on whose behalf the accused public servant is alleged to have accepted the bribe, as per the version of the complainant. Along with that, the High Court agreed with the special court's stance that a reconsideration of refusal to sanction prosecution must be done by a higher reviewing authority and not by the one itself that initially denied sanction.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal observed that the stage of taking cognizance has not yet been reached in the current case and the special judge was right in issuing directions for further investigation at the initial stage of filing chargesheet against the accused. The accused, Chetram, was the Personal Assistant & LDC of Alwar Dairy Chairman.

Rajasthan HC Asks Family Courts To Avoid Unnecessary Adjournments, Observe S.21B Hindu Marriage Act Which Encourages Day-To-Day Trial

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 49

The Rajasthan High Court asked the family courts to sparingly grant adjournments during the pendency of divorce petitions, to realise the objective behind Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that disposal of divorce matters shouldn't be delayed unnecessarily and the proceedings should be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

“Let a copy of this order be sent to all Family Courts through Registrar General with directions to comply with the provisions contained under Section 21-B of the Act of 1955 while deciding all matrimonial matters arising out of the provisions of the Act of 1955”, the bench sitting Jaipur issued appropriate directions.

PIL To Cancel Mining Lease In Khetri Rejected By Rajasthan High Court Citing Distortion Of Facts, Imposes Rs 5 Lakhs Cost On Litigants

Title: Smt. Hemika & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 50

Rajasthan High Court imposed Rs 5 lakhs cost on villagers who filed a frivolous petition to cancel the mining lease granted to an entity in Jhunjhunu's Khetri district.

The Division Bench of Justices Bhuwan Goyal and Pankaj Bhandari said the court-appointed Commissioner's report suggests that no mining activities have taken place in the disputed land for the last two years, contrary to the submissions made by the petitioners. Moreover, photographs adduced by the petitioners indicating cracks in the nearby houses due to mining activities are also not factually correct, the court inferred.

“.. Petitioners have abused the process of Court by filing this PIL and petitioners have concealed the fact and stated wrong facts on affidavit… Out of cost of Rs.5,00,000/-, petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.8 [Mining Company], as he has incurred the cost of Court Commissioner”, the bench sitting at Jaipur noted in the order.

[Rajasthan Excise Act] Bar U/S 69 On Release Of Seized Vehicle Applies To Vehicle Carrying Contraband, Not To Escorting Vehicle: High Court

Title: Rajendra Kumar Saini v. State of Rajasthan Through PP

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 51

Rajasthan High Court iterated that the embargo under Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 on the powers of a criminal court won't be applicable when the seized vehicle was merely an escort for the vehicle that was originally carrying the contraband.

The single judge bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal also clarified that the bar under Section 69(6) preventing the release of seized vehicles by a judicial magistrate will operate only if it was utilised for carrying receptacles or packages contravening the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.

“…if the vehicle/conveyance is not found to be used to carry receptacles or package yet has been seized under the Rajasthan Excise Act, the proper remedy seeking to release such vehicle/conveyance would lie before the Court by way of filing an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. and the embargo envisaged under Section 69 either under Section 69(2-B) or sub-section 6, would not apply against such vehicle/conveyance…”, the bench sitting at Jaipur observed.

S.14 SARFAESI Act Confers Ministerial Powers On Magistrate, Not Required To Adjudicate Disputes Qua Secured Asset: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/s Trunks and Roots & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 52

Rajasthan High Court held that the powers of a CMM/DM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial and do not allow adjudication of a dispute regarding the secured asset that subsists between the borrower, secured creditor or any third party.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand underscored that the 'satisfaction of the magistrate' as contemplated in Section 14 means examining the factual correctness of assertions made in the affidavit. The court cannot delve into the legal niceties of the dispute involved except to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured asset, it was observed by Justice Dhand.

Rajasthan HC Orders Formation Of 'Grievance Redressal Cells' In All Govt Departments To Decide Public Representations, Comply With Judicial Orders

Title: Jagdish Chandra Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan, through Dy. Secretary to the Government (I) & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 53

Reprimanding the State for blatantly disregarding the court directions in a plea for regularization of a particular plot, Rajasthan High Court mandated forming of 'separate' Grievance Redressal cells in all state departments to ensure compliance with court orders.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also directed the State's Chief Secretary to make sure that such cells dispose of the representations made by the aggrieved persons, pursuant to court orders, within two months. Each such cell should be headed by the Principal Secretary of the respective department, the court added.

[RPSC RAS Prelims] Court Can't Determine Correctness Of Answer Key On Its Own, Scope Of Judicial Review Miniscule Only After Obtaining Expert Opinion: Rajasthan HC

Title: Prema Ram Patel & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. & Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 54

The Rajasthan High Court has recently refused to quash the final answer key uploaded by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) in the RAS Preliminary Exam (2023) by reasoning that the power of judicial review can be exercised only in 'exceptional circumstances', i.e., only when it is found that the answer keys are shown to be 'palpably and demonstrably erroneous'.

The single judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that when the disputed answers are seen through the lens of a prudent man, there does not appear any error apparent on the face of the record, which could have permitted the exercise of judicial review.

“The scope of judicial review is miniscule, insofar as Court's interference is sparingly permissible, only after obtaining the opinion of experts, who have accumulated sufficient knowledge in their stream of academia. Regardless, the Courts, purely on their own volition and knowledge, cannot determine/ascertain the correctness of an answer-key,” it said.

April 2024

Name Of Minor Rape Victim Disclosed In Investigation & Trial: Rajasthan High Court Directs Sensitisation Program For Police, Judicial Officers

Title: Rohit Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 55

Expressing concern about a situation where the identity of a rape victim was disclosed during investigation and trial, Rajasthan High Court proposed an exercise of sensitization for the police officers and judicial officers to ensure that such instances do not repeat.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted in the order that the mandatory requirement of Sections 24(5), 33(7) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code is not being adhered to in many cases.

“In this background, the court feels that an exercise of sensitization of the police officers and judicial officers is required to be undertaken so as to ensure strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of law and its requirements,” the bench sitting at Jaipur opined.

Deliberate Defiance To Hide Truth: Rajasthan HC Raps State In NDPS Matter For Non-Production Of Crime Scene's CCTV Footage, Other Best Evidence

Title: Sunil v. State of Rajasthan and Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 56

Rajasthan High Court censured the state instrumentalities for withholding the best evidence despite the trial court order, which the court opined was equivalent to contempt of court.

The single-judge bench of Justice Farjand Ali was pronouncing orders in three bail applications arising from an NDPS case.

“…what was the fear for the prosecution agency to conceal the documents; production of which would speak about the truth? It seems that 'there is specks in beard of a thief”; and strong circumstances are there to believe that the prosecution agency does not want to bring forth the truth before the Court…”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur made strong remarks as to why the prosecution story set out in the chargesheet cannot be blindly believed.

Sessions Court Can Take Cognizance Against Accused Not Yet Chargesheeted Without Waiting Till Stage Of S.319 CrPC: Rajasthan HC

Title: Babu Shekh & Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 57

Rajasthan High Court underscored that a Sessions Court can take cognizance against the accused not yet charge-sheeted by the police without waiting for the stage prescribed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

After an elaborate discussion of the relevant case laws, the single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand came to the conclusion that the Additional Sessions Court, as a court of original jurisdiction, has correctly taken cognizance against the remaining accused under Section 193 Cr.P.C after the committal of the case by the Magistrate.

“….it is clear from the authoritative judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court…. that the Court of Sessions is empowered to take cognizance against those accused persons under Section 193 CrPC who have been left by the police and who have not been arrayed as an accused by Investigating Agency with the charge-sheet”, the court observed in its order.

Multiple Dying Declarations Of Victim Not Consistent, Contrary To Each Other: Rajasthan HC Acquits Accused In 35 Yr-Old Rape Case

Title: Man Singh S/o Samantaram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 58

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court acquitted all the accused in a rape case from 1989 on the ground that the multiple dying declarations given by the victim were not consistent with each other. Conviction on the basis of such dying declarations that are contrary in material particulars can prove to be unsafe, the court iterated by relying on Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi v. Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh (2013).

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also emphasized that, on both occasions of recording the dying declarations of the deceased, the certificate as to whether the injured was medically fit to give statements was not obtained from a competent doctor by the police officer. Moreover, these statements were not recorded by or in the presence of a judicial magistrate, which resulted in a clear violation of Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the court noted.

'Weakens Democratic Set-Up & Affects Public At Large': Rajasthan High Court Quashes Suspension Order Of Sarpanch Passed On Flimsy Grounds

Title: Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 59

Observing that suspension of elected representatives on flimsy grounds or for settling political scores weakens the democratic setup and adversely affects the public at large, bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur at the Rajasthan High Court quashed the suspension order against the Sarpanch of Baori Kalla Gram Panchayath.

“…Placing under suspension of democratically elected persons on account of political vendetta weakens the very foundation of the democratic setup and, therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to pass the order of suspension after due application of mind. The passing of the suspension order casually in case of elected representatives adversely affects the public at large”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur remarked.

Rajasthan HC Waives Contractual Fees Payable To Panchayat During COVID-19, Says Pandemic Was Beyond Human Control Even Though Not Expressly Mentioned In Contract

Title: Manoj Paliwal & Anr v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 60

Rajasthan High Court allowed a waiver of the recovery to the tune of approximately Rs. 19 lakhs from the highest bidders of a Panchyath contract for faltering in their obligations. This dereliction of the contractual terms occurred during the period of March 2020 to June 2021, when all industrial operations were stopped due to the pandemic.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur noted in the order that 'situations beyond human control' happen during the currency of a contract. Even if not expressly mentioned in the contract, such scenarios ought to be considered while settling the dispute to ensure equity between the parties, the bench sitting at Jodhpur added.

Magistrate & Sessions Courts Taking Part Cognizance Against Same Accused For Different Offences Not Permissible: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Laxman Singh @ Bunty & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 61

Rajasthan High Court held that cognizance can't be taken twice by separate courts for different offenses against the same accused.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that the act of Additional Sessions Judge who took fresh cognizance against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 under Sections 307 and 148 of I.P.C, in addition to the offenses falling under Sections 323, 341, 325, 308 and 379 of I.P.C already taken cognizance of by the magistrate, is not in accordance with the law.

“…No doubt, on committal of the case by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions with reference to Section 209 Cr.P.C., the restrictions on the powers of Court of Sessions…would get lifted… But a conjoint reading of Section 193 and 209 Cr.P.C., would make it clear that the situation wherein part cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate and part cognizance has been taken by the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be held to be legally permissible…”, the bench sitting at Jaipur observed.

Magistrate's Power U/S 256 CrPC To Be Used Sparingly, Not For 'Statistical Purposes Of Removing Docket From Rack': Rajasthan High Court

Title: K. K. Construction v. Shri Bhagwan Singh Poswal, Chairman Shri Vinayak Mission Medical and Education Society Jaipur & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 62

Rajasthan High Court discussed in detail the powers of a Magistrate under Section 256 Cr.P.C, which should be used judiciously and based on a definite conclusion that the complainant no longer wants to prosecute the accused.

The court added that such power shouldn't be used 'whimsically' and 'mechanically' for statistical purposes like 'removing a docket from the rack'. It underscored that such drastic steps would undermine the cause of justice.

In this case falling under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the complainant or his counsel was present before the court in almost every instance, from the filing of the case in 2013 to the transfer of the case in 2021. In 2021, the criminal proceedings arising out of the cheque bounce were transferred to another court without giving intimation to the complainant, the court pointed out.

Overstaying Temporary Parole Period Not Bar For Grant Of Permanent Parole Under Rule 14(C) Of Prisoners Rules: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Om Prakash S/o Shri Nath Mal Ji v.State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 63

Rajasthan High Court held that overstaying the temporary parole period cannot be imposed as a bar on availing permanent parole under Rule 14(c) of Rajasthan Prisoners (Release On Parole) Rules, 1958.

The Division Bench of Justices Inderjeet Singh and Ashutosh Kumar observed that overstaying the parole period cannot be equated with the restrictions contained in Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958. Rule 14(c) states that permanent parole will be denied to prisoners who have escaped from jail or police custody or have attempted to escape from custody.

However, the bench sitting at Jaipur clarified that overstaying parole does not fall within the ambit of any of these restrictions. The court, hence, held that the petitioner who has served the actual sentence period of more than 15 years is entitled to permanent parole under Rule 9 of the 1958 Rules. The court also highlighted that the Superintendent of Central Jail has submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory.

Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Cannot Entertain Appeal Arising Out Of Service Matter Of Contractual Employee Of Rajasthan Financial Corp: High Court

Title: Anil Pareek v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 64

A division bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has set aside an order passed by a single judge bench which dismissed the writ petition filed by a contractual employee of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation challenging his transfer order upon observing that he has an alternative remedy to challenge the impugned transfer order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal.

The division bench consisting the Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta observed that the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal affecting services arising out of any service matter of an employee of Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Corporation).

“Consequence of non-inclusion of services under Rajasthan Financial Corporation as Civil Services by way of notification is that the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1976 does not have jurisdiction to hear appeal affecting services arising out of any service matter of an employee of Rajasthan Financial Corporation,” the bench noted.

'People Can't Take Law In Their Hands': Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Three Accused Of Lynching Rape Accused

Title: DS & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor & Anr. & Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 65

Rajasthan High Court denied bail to three persons accused of lynching a man booked earlier for raping the minor daughter of one among them. While denying the bail, the court emphasized that the FIR lodged by the police against the deceased Rohit for rape cannot be used as a shield by the appellants/accused for the purpose of bail in lynching.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman also added that the practice of mob lynching cannot be accepted in any civil society at any cost.

“…We are not living in a barbarian society. People are not allowed to take law in their hands so also, they should also not be allowed to create hindrance in working of the police, who in the instant case, reached at the spot but was prevented in discharging their official duties of maintaining law and order situation…”, the bench sitting at Jaipur observed.

High Courts Can't Entertain Appeals On Determination Of Excise Duty Rate Or Value Of Goods For Assessment: Rajasthan High court

Title: Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax Versus Jain Poles Industries

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 66

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, held that an appeal would lie to the High Court if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law; however, an appeal would not lie if the same pertains to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta has observed that SSI exemption for payment of central excise duty has been granted to the respondent. If this exemption is withdrawn, excise duty would become leviable, and consequently, it would be an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of excise duty. If the exemption is withdrawn, the goods will be valued for the purpose of assessment, and thus, they would fall within the exception as provided under Clause 1 of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To ED Officer, His Associate Arrested By State ACB For Allegedly Accepting ₹15 Lakh Bribe

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 67

The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to an Officer of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and his associate who were arrested last year in November by the State's Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 15 lakh for settling a case related to a chit fund.

A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected their bail pleas noting that the economic offences are grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and have serious repercussions on the development of the country.

The Court strongly discarded the contention raised by the accused persons that since a sanction was not granted for a considerable time by the department for their prosecution, and therefore, they should be granted to the petitioners.

Generation Of Surplus From Year To Year Cannot Be Bar For Trust In Seeking Section 10 (23C) (vi) Exemption: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chandigarh Manav Vikas Trust Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 68

The Rajasthan High Court held that the assessee is being run as a trust solely for educational purposes, thus seeking the exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act of 1961, and the generation of surplus from year to year cannot be a bar in seeking such an exemption under the provision of law.

The bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman has observed that mere generation of surplus cannot be a basis for rejection of an application under Section 10(23C)(vi) on the ground that it amounts to an activity of the nature of profit-making. In fact, the third proviso to the said clause clearly provides that accumulation of income is permissible subject to the manner prescribed therein, provided such accumulation is to be applied “wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established.”

'It's His Fundamental Right': Rajasthan High Court Allows Asaram Bapu To Avail Ayurvedic Treatment In Police Custody

Title - Asharam vs. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (RJ) 69

The Rajasthan High Court allowed self-styled godman Asaram Bapu to get ayurvedic treatment at 'Arogayadham Center' at Jodhpur in police custody.

A bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur passed this order on a plea moved by Asaram while stating that the right to get appropriate treatment is his fundamental right and the same needs to be protected.

"We, therefore, dispose of the present application by directing that the applicant's treatment shall be carried out at 'Arogayadham Center' at Jodhpur, in police custody. It will be required of the Commissioner of Police or his nominated officer to first visit the Arogayadham Center and assess the situation more particularly in relation to security aspects," the bench directed.

Challenge Of Compensation Under National Highways Act, 1956 Fall Under Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Akha Ram and Others vs National Highway Authority Of India and Others.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (RJ) 70

The Rajasthan High Court single bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that determination of compensation under National Highways Act, 1956 can be challenged before the arbitrator appointment by the Central Government. The bench held that challenges to such determination fall under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Regarding the appointment of an arbitrator, the High Court acknowledged that no notification appointing an arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Arbitration Act was presented before the District Judge. However, such notification was provided with the appeal, indicating that the Collector had indeed been appointed as an arbitrator for the acquisition in question. Therefore, the application before the District Judge should be treated under Section 34 of Arbitration Act.

State's Duty To Protect Temple's Rights; Compensation For Land Acquisition To Be Deposited With Devasthan Dept, Not Trustee: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Partap Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 71

Rajasthan High Court clarified that compensation in lieu of the acquisition of Temple's land should be deposited in the account of the Commissioner, Devasthan Department. Since the state has the duty to protect and safeguard the rights of the temple and the Commissioner is deemed to be a Treasurer of the charitable endowments, the Devasthan Department is entitled to receive compensation for temples registered as 'Public Trusts', the court elucidated further.

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhatti and Justice Munnuri Laxman was adjudicating a PIL filed by the President of the Trust managing the temple. According to the petitioner, the compensation awarded for getting alternative land allotted to a non-government temple in the state should have been given to such temples personally or their trust.

State 'First-Responder' To Citizens' Grievances, Ought To Pass Speaking Orders In Employee's Representations: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Pawan Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 72

Rajasthan High Court reminded the State about its role in cutting down unwanted litigation before the already over-burdened courts. The High Court also called upon the state instrumentalities to pass speaking orders, after due consideration of representations preferred by aggrieved employees.

“…by assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first responders, the State can very well do itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it substantially… the only requirement it ought to fulfil is that of providing an ear to their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice…”, the court observed.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain also expressed his disapproval about the non-consideration of representations made by state employees, which the court termed as 'unbecoming of government servants' who render the employees' grievances mute by such conduct.

Mother Forced To Deliver Twins In Middle Of Road, Gross Negligence On Part Of State: Rajasthan HC Orders Compensation For Newborns' Death

Title: Phoolmati v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 73

Terming the incident where a mother lost her twins due to the inaction of staff posted at a Community Health Centre (CHC) as a 'death of humanity', the Rajasthan High Court has ordered State and Central Governments to jointly pay the woman Rs 4 lakhs as compensation.

“…In utter violation of the fundamental right of leading a healthy life, the petitioner was compelled by the respondents to give birth to twin children in middle of a market road, which highlights a situation of gross negligence and failure on the part of the respondents in discharging their duties and providing the bare minimum benefits of the various Schemes i.e. JSY, JSSY, etc. to the petitioner…”, the court held.

A single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has also directed the state and central governments to cooperate effectively in terms of the implementation of welfare schemes. The court also pulled up the Central Government for trying to escape from liability on the ground that 'Health is a State subject.'

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Live Streaming Of Court Proceedings

Title: Harshit Dudawat v. The Hon'ble High Court Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar General & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 74

Rajasthan High Court refused to issue directions for the live streaming of court proceedings and rejected a public interest litigation filed seeking issuance and directions for the same.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Bhuwan Goyal dismissed the PIL filed by one Mr. Harshit Dudawat by taking the stand that video conferencing facilities are already available to all the litigants and the facility of live streaming could not be granted as of now.

“Taking into consideration that presently video conferencing facility is being provided to all the litigants and the petition seeks specific direction, we are not inclined to issue any direction at this stage”, the bench sitting at Jaipur stated in the order before disposing of the PIL.

Issuance Of Summons Is Not Initiation Of Proceedings Referable To Under Section 6(2)(B) Of CGST Act: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rais Khan Versus Add. Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 75

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, held that issuance of summons is not initiation of proceedings referable to under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta has observed that the scope of Section 6(2)(b) and Section 70 of the CGST Act is different and distinct, as the former deals with any proceedings on subject matter, whereas the latter deals with the power to issue a summons in an inquiry, and therefore, the words “proceedings” and “inquiry” cannot be mixed up to read as if there is a bar for the respondents to invoke the power under Section 70 of the CGST Act.

'VC Facility Being Provided To All Litigants': Rajasthan HC Disposes PIL Plea Seeking Live Streaming Of Court Proceedings

Title - Harshit Dudawat vs. Hon'ble High Court Of Rajasthan and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 76

The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed before it seeking live streaming of the court proceedings.

A bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Bhuwan Goyal noted that since the Court was already providing a video conferencing facility to all the litigants, the PIL plea deserved no action.

"Taking into consideration that presently video conferencing facility is being provided to all the litigants and the petition seeks specific direction, we are not inclined to issue any direction at this stage," the order of the Division bench states.

It may be noted that the High Courts in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Orissa, Guwahati, Calcutta and certain other courts are already being live-streamed. Some High Courts allow the general public to access their hybrid court links. The Constitution Bench hearings in the Supreme Court are also being live-streamed.

Adults Willingly Engaging In Sexual Relations Outside Marital Setting Constitutes No Offence: Rajasthan High Court

Title - Y and others vs State Of Rajasthan and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 77

The Rajasthan High Court observed that if two adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside of marriage, no statutory offence gets constituted.

A bench of Justice Birendra Kumar opined thus while emphasizing that unless someone marries during the lifetime of his/her spouse, only marriage-like relationships such as living-in-relationship would not come within the mischief of Section 494 IPC (Bigamy).

These observations were made by the single judge while dismissing an application filed by a Husband seeking to recall the court's order that quashed an FIR against individuals accused of abducting his wife.

Retiral Benefits Cannot Be Withheld Because Of Proceedings Which Do Not Relate To Official Duties: Rajasthan HC

Title: Mahesh Chandra Soni vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 78

A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena while deciding a Civil Writ Petition (“CWP”) in the case of Mahesh Chandra Soni vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. held that retiral benefits cannot be withheld because of proceedings which do not relate to official duties like family disputes.

The court further held that judicial proceedings as referred to in Rule 90 of the Pension Rules relates to any act of an employee committed by him/her in his/ her office or in connection with the official duties.

“The words 'judicial proceedings' as referred in Rule 90 of the Pension Rules, 1996 cannot be treated for the proceedings related to the “family disputes”, which has nothing to do with the official duties or functioning of the employee in his office.”

The court also remarked on the nature of pension and gratuity and held that pension and gratuity are not bounty but constitute a right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution which cannot be deprived except in accordance with law.

When Dealing With Matters Of Concealment, Courts Ought To Juxtapose The Nature Of Concealment With The Nature And Terms Of Recruitment: Rajasthan HC

Title: Nand Kishore Meena vs General Manager, Disciplinary Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 79

A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sameer Jain while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Nand Kishore Meena vs General Manager, Disciplinary Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce held that while dealing with matters of concealment, the courts ought to juxtapose the nature of concealment on part of the applicant with the nature and terms of the recruitment.

The court observed that despite having knowledge about the same, the Petitioner concealed material information regarding his previous prosecution in order to secure employment with the Respondent. The recruitment for the post of Cleaner-Class IV is to be administered as per the requirements of the Respondent and ascertainment of the requirements/criteria is purely on the discretion of the Respondent.

Punishment Of Forfeiture Of Service Can Be Imposed For Willful Absence Though Not Explicitly Stated Under Services Rules: Rajasthan HC

Title: Shiv Kumar Khandelwal vs State of Rajasthan & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 80

A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sameer Jain while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Shiv Kumar Khandelwal vs State of Rajasthan & Ors held that punishment of forfeiture of service can be imposed for willful absence even though it is not explicitly spelt out under Rule 14 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.

The court observed that as per a State Government order dated 25.07.1974, CAD Commissioner was competent to control the staff and procurement in all manners. Therefore, powers equivalent to the Agriculture Department were assigned to the Respondent and thus they were within their authority to conduct the departmental enquiry.

Employees Have A Legitimate Expectation For Extension Of Same Benefits As Extended To Similarly Situated Employees: Rajasthan HC

Title: Dr. Mukesh Sharma vs State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 81

A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Dr. Mukesh Sharma vs State of Rajasthan has held that employees have a legitimate expectation of getting same benefits which were extended to an employee which is similarly situated.

The court remarked the following:

“It is a legitimate expectation of an employee that whatever the benefits are being extended to an employee who is similarly situated to him/her, the same benefits be also allowed to him/her. The respondent has no authority to make a discrimination among the similarly situated employees for no good reason”

Lien Of A Government Servant Only Ceases When Appointed On Another Post Substantively Or Absorbed Permanently: Rajasthan HC

Title: Dr. Shiv Kumar vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 82

A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Dr. Shiv Kumar vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. held that lien of a government servant only ceases to exist when he/she is appointed on another post substantively or absorbed permanently.

“as per settled legal position, we observe that 'lien' of a government servant only ceases to exist when he/she is appointed on another post 'substantively'/confirmed or absorbed permanently. Otherwise, his/her lien would continue on the previous post”

Absence Of Limitation Period Under ID Act Does Not Mandate Court To Entertain Substantially Delayed Claim: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Udai Singh vs Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Dholpur & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 83

A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sameer Jain while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Udai Singh vs Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Dholpur & Ors. held that the absence of statutory period of limitation under the ID Act, 1947 does not have the effect that substantially delayed lis should be mandatorily entertained by the courts.

“The statutory absence of any period of limitation in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not by itself, have the effect of stale and/or substantially delayed lis being mandatorily entertained by the Courts. The Court, while exercising its jurisdiction, must juxtapose the prolonged delay with the explanation offered in connection therewith, and only thereafter, having assessed the laches, proceed with the matter”

AAI Is An Extended Hand Of GOI; No Backdoor Entries Can Be Permitted While Absorbing Workers: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Hari Shankar Sharma & Ors. vs UOI & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 84

A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sameer Jain while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Hari Shankar Sharma & Ors. vs UOI & Ors. held that AAI is an extended hand of the Government of India, thus no backdoor entries can be permitted while absorbing and regularizing workers in the same.

The court further relied on the judgment of K.K. Suresh and Anr. vs. Food Corporation of India where it was held by the Supreme Court that contractual engagement does not create a vested right of employment in favour of the workers, engaged through a placement agency.

The court further relied on the judgment of Ganesh Digamber Jhambhrundkar and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors which was rendered by the Supreme Court in furtherance of the settled position of the law regarding the negative scope of regularization of contractual employees. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment clearly held that the fact of contractual employees rendering their services for a long time shall not create a vested right of employment in their favour

Rajasthan HC Restores Candidature Of Woman Ousted From Constable Recruitment Over Wrong Measurement Of Height In Physical Test, Orders Compensation

Title: Sapna v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 85

For making the mistake of measuring a woman candidate's height incorrectly during the Physical Test as a part of Constable Recruitment, Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the state to be paid to the petitioner.

The single-judge bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena noted that the act of respondents has resulted in 'great mental agony and litigation cost' to the petitioner candidate. In such circumstances, the court deemed it fit to impose a hefty cost on the respondents.

“…The amount of cost should be paid by respondents by a demand draft within a period of one month from the date of submitting certified copy of this order”, the bench sitting at Jaipur accordingly stipulated in the order.

'Incomprehensible How UAPA Invoked': Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To 'SFJ Members' Accused Of Writing 'Khalistan Zindabad' In A Public Place

Title - Lovepreet Singh and Another vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1510/2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 86

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to two alleged operatives of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) accused of writing “Khalistan Zindabad” slogan on a wall in a public place in the state's Hanumangarh area.

Importantly, the Court observed that it was "not comprehensible" as to how the penal provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have been invoked against the accused persons. The Court also added that no overwhelming circumstances were available to draw a presumption regarding the guilt of the accused.

With this, a bench of Justice Farjand Ali granted relief to the accused [Lovepreet Singh and Harmanpreet Singh] while noting that there is a high probability that the trial may take a long time to conclude and that further incarceration of the accused petitioners isn't necessary.

Cheques Encashed Pursuant To 'Full And Final Settlement' Without Any Protest, Rajasthan High Court Refuses Arbitration

Title: Vimlesh Baregama v. Manglam Cement Ltd, S.B. Arbitration Application No. 23 of 2021

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 87

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, held that an application seeking the appointment of an arbitrator would not be allowed if the parties had already entered into a full and final settlement, and the applicant had encashed the settlement amount without protest or objection. The Court held that in such cases, the dispute would be considered non-arbitrable.

Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava's bench further clarified that a petition seeking the appointment of an arbitrator would be deemed frivolous if it fails to disclose the full and final settlement between the parties and the encashment of cheques issued as part of the settlement.

For Establishing Offence Of Filing Delayed ITR, “Mens Rea” Is A Necessary Ingredient: Rajasthan High Court

 Title: The Income Tax Officer Versus Rajendra Prasad Vaish

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 88

The Rajasthan High Court held that for holding an assessee guilty of the offence of filing delayed income tax returns, “mens rea“ is a necessary ingredient.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that in the absence of mens rea, an accused cannot be held guilty, and his conviction under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained.

The court noted that the complainant, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 276C, has to prove the mens rea of the accused for non-payment of tax or attempt to evade tax. But in the present case, the accused respondent has explained in detail the reasons for the delay in filing the income tax returns and depositing the entire tax amount with a penalty subsequently.

May 2024

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging GST Demand On Exhibition Services

Title: M/s. Savio Jewellery Versus Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 89

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition challenging the GST demand on exhibition services.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta did not find any reason to entertain the writ petition as the services received outside India are already taxable at the hands of the receiver of services, who is a registered person in taxable territory, i.e., India.

The court noted that the supply of services has taken place outside India, and as per the notification, the receiver of the service is the person who is registered in the taxable territory. The petitioner is a registered person who is located in the taxable territory. The petitioner is a registered person who is located in the taxable territory.

Advocates Owe Duty To Court, Must Advise Clients Against Dishonest Practises Even If It Doesn't Align With Client's Desired Outcome: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Simara Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 90

The Rajasthan High Court observed that an advocate should not blindly follow the instructions of clients if they are unethical, illegal, or contrary to the principles of justice.

The said observation was made by the single judge bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman while hearing a miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR for offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.

The bench further noted: “If a client's instructions are in violation of these ethical guidelines or if they involve engaging in dishonest or unethical practices, it is the duty of the advocate to advise the client against such actions. Advocates are expected to provide honest and unbiased advice to their clients, even if it may not align with the client's desired outcome. Furthermore, an advocate's duty is not only towards their clients but also towards the court and the administration of justice.”

Crane Services To Transport Department Does Not Constitute Sale: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s Agarwal Carriers And Lifters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 91

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has held that crane services to the transport department does not constitute sale.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain has observed that the crane services provided by the respondent-assessee do not constitute sale as provided under Section 2(35)(iv) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and hence, the order of the Tax Board does not call for any interference.

The court held that the effective control of the crane, even while the same was in the use of the consumer for the tasks so contracted for, was that of the respondent-assessee. The consumer-Transport Department was not free to make use of the crane for the works other than those contracted for with the respondent-assessee or even take the said crane out from a specific area during the period of the contract when the crane was in his use. Therefore, the control and possession of the crane, as evidenced by the requirements imposed under Condition Nos. 17 and 28, lay with the respondent- assessee only. Hence, there were no mitigating circumstances warranting the contract dated 13.10.2008 to encapsulate a sale as provided under Section 2(35)(iv) of the Act of 2003 read with Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India.

Subjective Reasons For Order Of Compulsorily Retirement Should Be Recorded On Material Available On Employee's Service Record: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.). and anr vs Kalu Ram Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 92

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that an order of compulsory retirement can very well be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the employer/ Government. However, it held that subjective satisfaction should have been recorded based on the material available on the employee's service record.

The bench held that such orders can be interfered with if the same is (a) malafide (b) based on no evidence or (c) so arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form a requisite opinion on the given material.

Only Prima Facie Satisfaction Required U/s 124(1)(ii) Of Trademarks Act, Court Not Required To Access Sufficiency Of Evidence: Rajasthan High Court

Title: M/s. Lotus Organic Care and Anr vs M/s. Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 93

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur held that the court is only required to prima facie under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 to satisfy itself with respect to the pleadings taken in the written statement to the effect that the trademark of the plaintiff is invalid. It held that the court is not required to measure the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence or other factors for adjudicating the factum of the success or failure of the rectification application.

Section 124(1)(ii) states the procedure to be followed in cases where the validity of the registration of a trademark is questioned in a suit for infringement. It provides the court's authority to adjourn proceedings to allow a party to apply for rectification of the trademark registration.

Absence Of Prior Sanction U/s 197 CrPC Renders Cognizance For Offences U/s 323 & 504 IPC By Magistrate For Initiating Criminal Prosecution Of Public Servant, Non-Est: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dharamveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 94

Finding that the entire series of events have nexus with each other and the action of petitioner (SHO) was done in discharge of his official duties, the Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) held that the cognizance for offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, taken by the Judicial Magistrate against a public servant, posted as Station House Officer (SHO), is unsustainable in law, in absence of prior sanction, which is a statutory requirement in view of Section 197 CrPC, for initiating criminal prosecution of a public servant.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal observed that “Merely based on remote presumption, the Judicial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance for offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC against the petitioner that too without insisting for previous sanction in view of Section 197 CrPC, more particularly when the Judicial Magistrate himself agreed that the action of petitioner to arrest the complainant along with other two persons, was done in discharge of his official duty”

Art 226 Can't Be Invoked While Exercising Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Art 227 In Matter Of Dispute Between Private Parties: Rajasthan HC

Title: Suo Moto vs. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 95

Referring to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can't be invoked while exercising supervisory jurisdiction in the matter of dispute between the private parties.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that “while exercising supervisory jurisdiction in the matter of dispute between the private parties, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked”.

Co-Accused Can't Claim Parity As Matter Of Right Just Because Other Accused Has Illegally Obtained Bail By Concealing Material Fact: Rajasthan HC

Title: State Of Rajasthan vs. Indira Kumari

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 96

Finding that the accused had suppressed the material facts & evidence against her and has committed an act of misrepresentation for getting the order of bail, when the 'evidence of last seen' was there against her along with other co-accused persons, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) held that the accused has deliberately attempted to pollute the stream of justice and has approached the Court with unclean hands for getting indulgence of bail.

The High Court therefore held that the bail order secured by suppressing and concealing the statements recorded u/s 164 of CrPC is liable to be recalled and the bail granted to the accused Indira Kumari is cancelled.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police as well as SHO to take the accused in custody and subject her for trial.

Thereafter, the Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand went on to observe that “It is the settled proposition of law that the principle of parity is based on positive equality. If any illegality has been committed by any individual or any wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, the other person cannot claim the same parity as a matter of right and cannot ask the court to pass the same order by repeating or multiplying the same illegality or for passing a similar wrong order”. 

June 2024

Rajasthan High Court Modifies Attempted Rape Conviction To Outraging Modesty

Case Title- Suwalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 97

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a man who was convicted of attempted rape by altering charges against him, noting that removing the girl's innerwear and undressing himself did not amount to an attempt to rape.

Single bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand concluded to rule that the accused could not be proven guilty of attempting to rape under Section 376/511 of the IPC but the evidence shows a conviction for assault with intent to outrage the victim's modesty under Section 354 of the IPC. As a result, the Court modified the conviction from attempted rape to assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty under Section 354 of the IPC. Further, the Court held that the accused had been in jail for about 2 and a half months in 1991 before and after conviction and therefore the accused should now not be sent to jail.

Rajasthan High Court Declines To Quash FIR Against Medical Officials Allegedly Involved In Illegal Kidney Transplantation At Jaipur's Fortis Hospital

Case Title- Dr Jyoti Bansal and Ors v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 98

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) related to an international racket involving illegal kidney transplantation at Fortis Hospital, Jaipur.

Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal observed that it is a well-established legal principle that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing FIRs/complaints should be exercised sparingly and with caution, only in rare cases where it is prima facie established that no cognizable offence is made out against the accused persons or their involvement is baseless or motivated by malicious intent to seek revenge due to personal grudges.

Public Prosecutor Has No Authority To Request Trial Court To Discharge Accused Once Application U/S 321 CrPC Is Rejected: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Rajesh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 99

The Rajasthan High Court held that the Public Prosecutor is duty-bound to prosecute the accused and open the case for prosecution once the application for withdrawal of prosecution against the accused under Section 321 Cr.PC is rejected by the concerned Court.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that at the stage of framing of charges against the accused, it is enough to show that there is a prima facie case and that there are sufficient grounds available to proceed against the accused. The evidence is not required to be analysed as it is required to be done after the completion of the trial.

The Court noted that the order of the Magistrate under Section 169 Cr.PC that rejected the discharge of Petitioners and order of the Supreme Court under Section 321 Cr.PC that rejected the withdrawal of prosecution against Petitioners has attained finality. Thus, it held that the Public Prosecutor is “duty bound to conduct prosecution against the accused persons and the prosecution is under a legal obligation under Sections 225 and 226 Cr.P.C. to open its case by describing the charges brought against the accused persons.”

Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Transfer Orders Of 198 Panchayat Officials, Issues Guidelines For Autonomy Of Local Self-Governing Bodies

Case Title- Kera Ram v. The State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 100

In a notable decision, the Rajasthan High Court halted the transfer orders of numerous Panchayat officials, citing serious breaches of statutory provisions under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and its related rules.

Bench presided by Justice Arun Moonga issued guidelines for the transfer of Panchayat officials of various ranks, emphasizing the importance of local bodies' autonomy and the need to strengthen grassroots democracy.

Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Trial Court's Ad-Interim Order Due To Earlier Contradictory Order In Another Matter Pending Between Same Parties

Case Title- Abdul Rahim and Anr. v M/S Khatri Marble Mines Makrana and Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 101

A bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas at the Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) quashed an order of a trial court for passing a contradictory ad-interim order over another ad-interim order passed by it in the same matter. The Court observed the following:

The Court pursuant to juxtaposing both the orders of the trial court, observed that while in the impugned order, the appellant had been restrained from mining activities, the trial court itself had granted permission for the same to the appellant in its order dated March 3, 2024. Hence, it was ruled that the impugned order was passed wholly without application of mind by the trial court and thus was set aside.

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Age Criteria For Civil Judge Recruitment

Case Title- Ghanshyam Das v Rajasthan High Court and Anr

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 102

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging the Civil Judge recruitment process so far as the upper age limit to appear in the exam is concerned.

A division bench led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava observed that the intention of proviso (iv) to Rule 17 was to relax the age limit for those who would have been eligible in a subsequent year had the exam been conducted in that year but became age barred due to gap in the recruitment process. Such individuals would be treated as eligible for the next examination. It held that deemed eligibility would be ascertained by examining whether the candidate would have been eligible with age relaxation under Rule 17 if the exam was held in the following year. If this ascertainment is positive, only then the relaxation under Rule 17 proviso (iv) would come into play for that candidate.

[Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009] No Bar On Directly Approaching Civil Court Without Availing Remedy Under The Act: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Neeta Kapoor v Gayatri Devi and Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 103

A bench of Justice Birendra Kumar at the Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) dismissed a revision petition filed against an order of a trial court wherein the trial court refused to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

The Court distinguished the 2 cases that were used by the counsel for the petitioner to support his case. Firstly, the Court said that in one of the cases the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) in light of Section 99 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act (“JDA Act”). Section 99 specifically barred the cognizance by a civil court before availing the remedy under the JDA Act. However, the Court highlighted that there existed no such bar under the Act on the jurisdiction of the civil court. Secondly, in another case, the Supreme Court was considering the issue of alternative remedy before approaching the writ court. It held that the party aggrieved by the construction should have approached the municipal authorities. If no proper response was received from the authorities, then the civil court was the appropriate forum to be approached.

After 30 Yrs Since Appeal, Rajasthan High Court Reduces Sentence In Kidnapping Case To 5 Days Citing Delay In Proceedings

Case Title- Kamla v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 104

The Rajasthan High Court reduced the sentence in a Kidnapping case of 1992, citing 30 years delay in deciding the convict's appeal. A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg said the appellant-convict had "suffered mental agony and trauma of protracted trial" and thus reduced the sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, i.e. 5 days.

Scope Of Interference With Acquittal Order Very Limited, Can Be Reversed Only If It Demonstrates Perversity, Error Of Law: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- State of Rajasthan v Devilal and Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 105

The Rajasthan High Court made it clear that the scope of interference with an acquittal order passed by the Trial Court in criminal proceedings is very limited. While enumerating certain principles laid down in certain Supreme Court cases, a division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas held that the judgment of the Trial Court can be reversed by the appellate court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the present case, the learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment, examined each and every witnesses at a considerable length and duly analyzed the documents produced before it, coupled with examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal.

Rajasthan High Court Declines Compassionate Appointment To Son Adopted After Crossing 15 Yrs Age Threshold Under Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act

Case Title- Narendra Singh v State of Rajasthan, Department of Secondary Education and Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 106

The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed the plea for compassionate appointment moved by the adopted son of a government servant, citing non-compliance of the provisions for adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

After hearing the arguments, bench of Justice Arun Monga said the judgment of Mohan Singh Bhati v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. was per in-curium in light of a division bench judgment in Kumari Vinita Sharma v Union of India where one of the reasons to reject the plea for compassionate appointment was Section 10(iv) of the Act. Since the petitioner was 25 years of age at the time of adoption, irrespective of the presumption under Section 16, no compassionate appointment was granted in the case.

Testimony Of Injured Witness Can Be Relied Upon Unless There Are Major Contradictions: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Munna and Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 107

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the testimony of an injured witness cannot be discarded merely because of minor discrepancies since he is not likely to spare the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal thus observed that the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law and it cannot be rejected unless there are major discrepancies or contradictions.

Removing Girl's Innerwear, Undressing Oneself Not 'Attempt To Rape' But Indecent Assault: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Suwalal v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 108

The Rajasthan High Court held that the act of removing a girl's innerwear and undressing oneself with nothing more will not attract the offence of 'attempt to commit rape' under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC but it will attract the offence of Assault to outrage modesty of a woman punishable under Section 354 IPC.

In holding so, a bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand explained that for the offence of “attempt”, 3 stages needed to be fulfilled- firstly, there must be an intention to commit the offence; secondly, an act towards the commission of that offence; and thirdly, the act must be close enough to the culmination of the crime. On the other hand, the Court elaborated that any act that fell short of such an act that crossed the stage of preparation constituted indecent assault under Section 354 IPC.

S.138 NI Act | Relevant Date For Determining 'Legally Enforceable Debt' Is Date Of Presentation/ Maturity Of Cheque: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Paul Mitra v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 109

The Rajasthan High Court held that the relevant date for ascertaining existence of a "legally enforceable debt or liability" under the Negotiable Instruments Act is the date of presentation/maturity of the cheque. A bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman said the drawer of a cheque cannot shirk their liability to pay the cheque amount by taking plea that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability subsisting on the date of issuance/drawl.

The Court referred to the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr. in which the Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 138 NI Act was made out on existence of a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation of the cheque. The Court mentioned another case of Sunil Todi v State of Gujarat which elaborated on the phrase “debt and other liabilities” in Section 138 and differentiated between the two. It observed that previous cases had ruled that “debt” included only the amount owed on the date of issuance. However, “other liabilities” was different from “debt” and hence, liability arising on the date of maturity was also covered under Section 138.

Non-Compliance Of S.52A NDPS Act Prima Facie Vitiates Search & Seizure: Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To Man Allegedly Found With Half Kg Heroin

Case Title- Amjad Khan v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 110

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is mandatory in nature and failure to comply with the provision undermines the prosecution case and vitiates the entire search and seizure proceedings.

While perusing the records of the case, the Court highlighted failure on part of the seizure officer to comply with the procedure under Section 52A. It referred to the Supreme Court case of Mangi Lal v the State of Madhya Pradesh where it was held that Section 52A is mandatory and in case of non-compliance, the inventory, samples and photographs would not constitute as primary evidence.A bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni thus granted bail to a man allegedly found in possession of 510 gms heroin.

CrPC Doesn't Permit Keeping Rape Complaint Pending For Pre-Investigation: High Court Slams Rajasthan Police, Asks DGP To Intervene

Case Title- Ghulam Mohammad v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 111

The Rajasthan High Court has frowned upon the conduct of the Investigation Officer in a rape case for keeping the complaint pending for about a week, under the pretext of conducting a "pre-investigation", before filing the FIR. A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said there is no such provision in the CrPC or principal in criminal jurisprudence to keep any report of offence of rape or any offence pending for pre-investigation for considerable time.

The Court highlighted that it is a settled law that in rape cases, accused can be convicted solely on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix. However, only if the testimony appeared to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality. To elaborate the concept of 'sterling witness', the Court referred to certain Supreme Court cases. In Rai Sandeep v State (NCT of Delhi), the concept of 'sterling witness' was enumerated.

[Arbitration Act] Court Should Not Issue Broad Injunctions Under Section 9 If Dispute Involves Monetary Claim: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Riddhi Siddhi Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Anil Industries and ors

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 112

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni held that while passing interim order or taking interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is required to have a prima-facie grasp of the dispute and claim of the parties.

The bench held that the court should look at the nature of the controversy and consider the relief claimed or the amount claimed. It held that if the dispute involves a monetary claim or can be quantified in financial terms, rather than issuing broad injunctions to maintain the status quo regarding the property, the court should instead safeguard the anticipated amount to be awarded to the claimant.

S.427 CrPC | Sentence In Default Of Payment Of Fine Cannot Be Allowed To Run Concurrently With Substantive Sentences: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Bhoor Singh Kharwal v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 113

While hearing a petition in relation to Section 427 CrPC, a bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman at the Rajasthan High Court stated that concurrent running of substantive sentences along with the sentences awarded for default of payment of fine/compensation is not permitted. However, the Court clarified that sentences that were awarded to the petitioner in default of payment of fine/compensation would not be affected by this direction. Such default sentences would run consequent to the substantive sentences running concurrently.

Limited Jurisdiction In Appeals U/S 30 Workmen Compensation Act, Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Venture Fact Finding: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Mota Ram

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 114

The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act confines jurisdiction of the High Court to only substantial questions of law wherein the court cannot re-appreciate the evidence for fact finding or answering factual questions. A bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha opined that Workmen Compensation Commissioner was the last authority on the question of facts.

Arbitration Requires Dispute Arising From Agreement, Unrelated Disputes Ineligible for Arbitration: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- M/s Blue City Indane vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 115

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that arbitration hinges on the presence of a dispute arising from the agreement between the involved parties. The bench held that any dispute unrelated to the terms of the agreement between the parties cannot be subject to the arbitration clause and therefore cannot be referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause.

Justice Not Saleable, Failure To Extend Benefits Of Judgment In Rem To Similarly Situated Persons Violates Constitutional Rights: Rajasthan HC

Case Title- Naresh Singhal v State of Rajasthan, Transport Department of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur & Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 116

A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court noted that when a judgment was pronounced that affected rights of public at large, it should be treated as a judgment in rem. Irrespective of the aggrieved approaching the court, authorities were obligated to extend its benefits to all similarly situated persons.

The remarks were made while disposing off a bunch of writ petitions challenging blacklisting of their vehicles by the Transport Department on request of the Mining Department. While the petitioners in this case had sought the benefit of an earlier decided case, the respondent-authorities contended that the judgment passed in Zabir Khan was not in rem but in personam. Disagreeing, the Court noted that when a judgment was pronounced that affected rights of public at large, it should be treated as a judgment in rem. Irrespective of the aggrieved approaching the court, authorities were obligated to extend its benefits to all similarly situated persons.

Unreasoned Orders By Judicial/ Quasi-Judicial Authorities Violate Natural Justice: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Commercial Tax Assessment Order

Case Title- M/s Napin Impex Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Janpath, Jaipur

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 117

The Rajasthan High Court set aside an assessment order passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur (“CCT”) under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court observed that the assessment order was unreasoned and was passed without any application of mind, violating the principles of natural justice.

A division bench led by Justice Avneesh Jhingan highlighted that the assessment order was a computer generated one. It had no basic background context regarding issuance of notice, non-compliance or even the reasons for disallowing the claim for ITC. Such order was seen as violative of principles of natural justice, allowing the high court to exercise its writ jurisdiction even if alternative remedy was available.

Notice Of Pre-Election Disqualification Issued To Councillor Prior To Introduction Of S.39(e) Rajasthan Municipalities Act Not Valid: Rajasthan HC

Case Title- Mahendra Kumar Mewara v State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 118

Rajasthan High Court ruled that Section 39(e) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009 which was inserted by way of an amendment dated April 13, 2024 to empower the State government to remove a member of a Municipality on grounds of pre-election disqualification, does not have a retrospective application.

Delaying Decision In Service Appeal For 7 Yrs Without Any Reason Amounts To Denial Of Justice: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Madan Lal v the State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 119

Rajasthan High Court frowned upon the 7 years delay in deciding a service appeal by the appellate authority under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that prolonging the decision in a service appeal for as long as seven years, in the absence of any reason, resulted in denial of justice on the basis of sheer delay. The Court held that even after prolonging the decision for seven years, there was a lack of careful consideration of the case. The Court opined that such failure to properly engage with the case rendered the decision both unsound and arbitrary.

S.451 CrPC | Seized Property Can't Be Allowed To Become Junk, Court Should Expeditiously Issue Custody Orders: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Kaniram v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 120

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that power under Section 451 CrPC for custody and disposal of seized property produced before any criminal court during pendency of a trial, needs to be exercised expeditiously. The reason being that owner of the article should not suffer because of it remaining unused and the police should not be required to keep the article in safe custody.

No Absolute Protection For Govt Employees To Continue Service At Desired Location, Administrative Exigency Precedes Familial Convenience: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Poonam Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 121

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review against transfer orders of government employees is minuscule. The Court observed that transfer being part and parcel of a transferable government job, government employees do not have fundamental protection to continue serving at a location of their liking.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that the decision regarding postings of government employees falls purely in the domain of appropriate authority or department which advances the department's output and service efficiency. The Bench held that the limited scope of the Court's interference with such transfer orders is possible if the orders are vitiated by some malice on the part of the transferring authority or are passed in violation of any statutes.

Candidates Can't Be Permitted To Amend Application Form Once Correction Window Expires: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

Case Title- Suman Kumari v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 122

Rajasthan High Court reiterated that a candidate cannot be permitted to make correction/amendment in the online application form after the last date of submitting the application form or up to the period and opportunity allowed to the candidate for making correction/amendment in the application.

Bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena referred to the case of Piyush Kaviya & Ors. v the Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. where it was held that every effort needs to be made to induct meritorious students, however, the administrative inconvenience caused due to allowing applicants to rectify the errors needs to be taken into account. Civil posts needs to be filled up as the earliest, and therefore the conflict between merit and public interest is balanced by allowing a window to the applicants for correcting their forms and prohibiting any amendments beyond this window.

Long List Of Criminal Appeals Pending Hearing: Rajasthan HC Suspends Sentence Of Life Convict Who Served 10 Yrs, Cites Delay In Deciding Appeal

Case Title- Deepak Khorwal v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 123

The Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentence of an individual sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder and released him on bail, pending his appeal in the case. The individual had filed an application under Section 389, CrPC, arguing that he had been in custody for more than 10 years and there was no likelihood of the appeal being taken up in the near future.

A division bench led by Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that the Appellant-applicant has already undergone sentence for over 10 years and apparently, there were no chances of hearing of the appeal in near future. Except for the fact that the appellant-applicant was involved in offence leading to his conviction for life, nothing was brought on record by way of aggravating circumstances for denial of suspension of sentence.

Irregularity In Paying Travelling Allowance Does Not Impact Legality Of Employee's Transfer Order: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Suraj Mal Maliwal v the Director, Directorate of Ayurved Department Government of Rajasthan, Ajmer

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 124

A division bench led by Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati of the Rajasthan High Court held that the determination of the admissibility of travelling allowance shall not be construed as a non-curable defect in the transfer order of an employee. The Court observed that the legality of a transfer order did not get affected by the denial of travelling allowance. The latter was a distinct component and any irregularity on that front could be cured at any point of time. In this background, the Court stated that since the state was ready to pay the travelling allowance to the appellant, the appeal could be disposed of.

Commissioner Under Disabilities Act Cannot Stay Retirement Of Any Employee: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

Case Title- Rajasthan Public Service Commission v The Commissioner- persons with Disabilities, Government of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 125

A bench of Justice Sameer Jain at the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the Commissioner under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 does not have the jurisdiction to pass an interim direction, putting a stay on the retirement of an employee. The Court observed that the Chief Commissioner overlooked and ignored the fact that as an authority functioning under the Disabilities Act, he had no power or jurisdiction to issue a direction to the employer not to retire an employee. In fact, under the Scheme of the Disabilities Act, the Chief Commissioner (or the Commissioner) had no power to grant any interim direction.

Repeated Representations Can't Be Made Basis To Approach Court When There Is No Subsisting Right: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Rajendra Gupta v State of Rajasthan, through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing Secretariat, Jaipur

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 126

Rajasthan High Court affirmed that if a subsisting right has come to an end on account of delay and laches, repeated representations could not be a basis to approach the court for seeking a direction to decide those representations, in absence of any subsisting right.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of C. Jacob v Director of Geology & Mining & Another that had observed that not every relief representation to the government was to be replied on merits. If the representations related to the matters that have become stale or were barred by limitations, those could be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. Hence, care needed to be exercised while issuing directions for “consideration”. If the representation was stale or did not have anything to show that it related to a live claim, courts should desist from directing “consideration of such claims”.

Nature & Gravity Of Offence Taken Into Account While Considering Anticipatory Bail: Rajasthan High Court Denies Relief For Forging Pattas

Case Title- Dilip Sharma v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 127

Rajasthan High Court has denied anticipatory bail to the person charged under five different FIRs for forging “pattas” that were never actually issued by the Ajmer Development Authority and taking lakhs of rupees from complainants to distribute these fabricated pattas and documents.

A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, no doubt, the court had to take into consideration the personal liberty of the accused as a relevant factor, however, at the same time it was the duty of the court to take into account the nature of the offences involved and the charges levelled against the persons alleged.

Availing Civil Remedy No Basis To Quash Criminal Proceedings When Facts Prima Facie Reveal Criminal Offence: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Durga Lal Verma v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 128

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that availing a civil remedy does not by itself become grounds to quash a criminal complaint filed concerning facts which not only make out a civil wrong but a criminal offence as well.

A bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal highlighted that the dispute between parties, apart from giving rise to a dispute of a civil nature, also involved allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court also observed that it was a settled position that in a given case, civil and criminal proceedings could run simultaneously. The Court said that merely on account of the fact that complainant had a civil remedy as also has availed that remedy, the initiation of criminal motion against the petitioner may not be allowed to quash at the nascent stage of investigation in the impugned FIR.

[NDPS Rules] Seizure Officers Must Collect Contraband Samples Separately From Each Bag: Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To Accused Booked For Possessing Over 1 Kg Heroin

Case Title- Rajan Singh v Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 129

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an applicant who was booked under the NDPS Act for allegedly carrying over 1 Kg of heroin. The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman found that the samples of the contraband were not collected in accordance with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (“the Rules”)

The Court observed that it was the admitted fact of the prosecution too that samples were not drawn from each pouch and since no sample was drawn from each bag, it was not affirmed that every bag contained the alleged contraband and consequently the total quantity possessed by the applicant also remained unascertained.

Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act | Appellate Authority Can Pass Orders Incidental To Matter Before It Including Interim Orders Unless Prohibited: High Court

Case Title- M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 130

The Rajasthan High Court clarified that while deciding a matter, the appellate authority under the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act 1962 (“the Act”) has the power to pass orders that are incidental to the matter including any interim orders. A division bench led by Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava observed that ordinarily, the court would not have interfered with the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the stay application, had there been consideration of the merits of the application. However, present case was of exceptional nature for the reason that the appellate authority, on an erroneous assumption of law, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law which was jurisdictional defect and not mere error of fact or law. The Court held that the view taken by the appellate authority was erroneous and unsustainable in law. 

Police Acted Partially To Shield Real Culprits: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused, Directs Further Investigation By Senior Officer

Case Title- Mukesh Kumar Khedar v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 131

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused under the NDPS Act upon noting that the investigation carried out by the investigating officer (IO) was biased in nature. The Court further directed for additional investigation to be carried out by another officer.

A bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that fair trial and investigation were part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the basic requirement of rule of law was that the investigation must be fair, transparent and in accordance with law. The Court observed that since the IO failed to consider important material put forth, a fair and proper investigation was not conducted in the case. It noted that the Court being a constitutional court could not shut its eyes towards a defective investigation.

The Court held that in India, the police were bestowed with the responsibility to conduct the investigation and during that, an IO's primary responsibility was to ascertain the truth. Since it was apparent that the police in this case acted in a partial manner to shield the real culprits and worked for their own interest. The Court observed that in case of defective investigation during trial or inquiry, it needs to be cured by directing further investigation by another competent officer.

Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1996 | Family Of Govt Employee Who Died While On Duty Due To Heart Attack Entitled To Ex-Gratia Amount: High Court

Case Title- Magan Bai Meena v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 132

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that if a government servant dies while being on duty on account of heart failure, he is entitled to an ex-gratia amount under Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“the Rules”). Rule 75 of the Rules provides for situations in which the family of a government servant who dies while on duty is entitled to an ex-gratia grant.

Setting Cut-Off Dates For Recruitment Is Strictly Within Domain Of Employer, Cannot Be Relaxed To Accommodate Anyone: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title- Rita Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 133

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that fixing a cut-off date for recruitment processes falls purely in the domain of the employer and such a cut-off date was uniform for all the applicants and could not be relaxed for certain participants. The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that the advertisement had clearly fixed a cut-off date for submission of documents by the final year students i.e. before the date of written examination. And the petitioner was unable to submit the documents because the result of her dissertation was declared beyond the cut-off date by her university. However, the Court said that because of this delay on the part of the petitioner's university, the entire cut-off date could not be set aside.

Cheque Dishonour | Former Directors Cannot Be Made Liable For Cheques Issued By Company After Their Resignations Were Accepted: Rajasthan HC

Case Title- Pankaj Anand Mudholkar v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 134

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that after resignation, directions cannot be made liable for dishonour of cheques that were issued by the company pursuant to the resignation. It further stated that to prove that the accused was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company, as required under Section 141 of the NI Act, repetition of the wordings used in the section to that effect is not enough, it had to be proved in what manner the person was in charge of the company's functioning.

The Court observed that Form 32 proved that the petitioners were not the directors of the company when the cheques were issued. Furthermore, they were nowhere involved in the company's affairs when the money was invested by the complainant. Apart from bald allegation that they were in charge of the affairs of the company, nothing was stated as to how they were in charge of and/or responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business of the company.

Breach Of Rules Framed U/S 41 Rajasthan Forest Act Regarding Transit Of Forest Produce Is Non-Cognizable Offence: High Court Quashes FIR

Case Title- Jitendra Gupta v State of Rajasthan

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 135

Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that no FIR can be registered in relation to breach of Rules framed by the State government under Section 41 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 to regulate transit of forest produce. A bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman relied on Mousam Khan v. State of Raj. & Anr. where a co-ordinate bench held that an offence under Section 41 can only be prosecuted by filling a complaint by the authorised/competent Officer.

No Explanation For Delay Of 4-5 Yrs In Filing FIR: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Rape Accused

Case Title- Shrawan Ram v State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 136

Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused booked under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Amendment Act 2015 (“Act”) in an alleged case of rape, on the ground that no plausible explanation was provided by the prosecutrix for delaying the filing of FIR by 4-5 years. The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur agreed with the argument put forth by the counsel for the appellant that no explanation was provided by the prosecutrix for the delay in filing the FIR. Furthermore, the Court also took into account the fact that more than 980 phone calls were exchanged between the prosecutrix and the appellant on different dates indicating that they were in constant touch. Considering these two aspects primarily, the Court allowed the bail application.

July 2024

S.138 NI Act | Rajasthan High Court Permits Correction Of Date Of Presentation And Dishonour Of Cheque In Complaint Petition

Title: Mahaveer Prasad Suman v Lalit Mohan Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 137

Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition seeking amendment in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and affidavit annexed to correct the typographical errors in relation to the dates of presentation and dishonour of cheque.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman relied upon the Supreme Court case of S.R. Sukumar v Sunaad Raghuram, in which it was held that even if there is no specific provision in CrPC to amend a complaint or a petition, petitions seeking such amendments to correct the curable infirmities can be allowed.

“If the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such amendment, the Court may permit such an amendment to be made.”

Lok Adalats Don't Have Adjudicatory Powers: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Award Permitting Withdrawal Of Criminal Prosecution

Title: Meenu Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 138

Rajasthan High Court reiterated that Lok Adalats do not have adjudicatory powers and hence order of a Lok Adalat allowing withdrawal of a criminal prosecution cannot be sustined.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman referred to an identical case of Shyam Bacchani v State of Rajasthan & Ors decided by a coordinate bench of the Court where it was held that Lok Adalats had no adjudicatory powers and while allowing the withdrawal of a criminal prosecution, it exercised adjudicatory jurisdiction which was contrary to law. The Case analysed the provisions on organisation of Lok Adalats as well as on cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats provided under Sections 19 and 20 respectively of Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

Continuous Work Of Contractual Employees Does Not Create Any Vested Right For Permanent Employment: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

Title: Amita Singh and Ors. v State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 139

Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) affirmed that individuals hired on a contractual basis through a placement agency do not have any vested interest in being employed by the government. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court case of K.K Suresh and Anr. v Food Corporation of India to arrive at this position.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain relied on the case of Ganesh Digamber Jhambhrundkar and Ors. v State of Maharashtra and Ors. in which it was held that rendering services for a long time did not entitle the contractual employees to get a vested right of employment in their favour. The Court said:

“We appreciate the argument of the petitioners that they have given best part of their life for the said college but so far as law is concerned, we do not find their continuous working has created any legal right in their favour to be absorbed.”

Govt Cannot Disqualify Candidate Based Grounds Which Are Not Mentioned In Advertisement For Job Post: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Sumitra Kumari v The Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 140

The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena at the Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) has set aside an order of the Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Rajasthan (“the Department”) that rejected a candidate for a government post on the ground that the reason for disqualification was not mentioned as a disqualification criterion in the advertisement for the post. The Court termed the order as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. It said:

“The ground of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner seems to be wholly illegal and arbitrary for the reason that nowhere the terms and conditions of the advertisement speaks about the qualification and professional training from any particular Board.”

Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act | High Court Asks Govt To Add Provision Of Appeal Against Confiscation Of Vehicle Illegally Transporting Cattle

Title: Rameshwar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 141

Perusing orders passed by District Collector under Section 6A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act for confiscation of conveyance used to transport bovine animals without permit, the Rajasthan High Court called upon the State legislature to introduce a provision of appeal.

The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that it was never the intention of the State legislature to render any finality to the order of the Competent Authority passed under Section 6-A and not to provide any remedy of appeal or revision thereagainst in the Act.

"In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Competent Authority, it means the District Collector, under Section 6-A of the RBA Act, 1995, should also be amenable to be challenged by way of appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, in similar manner of availability of remedy of appeal under Section 7(3) against the order of Collector i.e. the Competent Authority passed under Section 7(1) or (2) of the Act,".

Lok Adalat Cannot Dismisses Case Over Non-Appearance Of Parties: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Kripal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 142

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that Lok Adalat does not have the power to "dismiss" a case owing to default in appearance by parties.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga highlighted Section 20(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 as per which where Lok Adalat is not able to make an award due to no compromise or settlement being reached between the parties, the record of the case needs to be returned by the Lok Adalat to the court.

Impleading Tenant In Proceedings For Issuance Of Letter Of Administration Under Indian Succession Act Not Allowed: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Shri Brijendra Malewar v Shri Ravindra Prakash & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 143

Rajasthan High Court held that a tenant cannot be impleaded under Order 1 Rule X of CPC in relation to proceedings of Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (“the Act”). Section 278 of the Act essentially deals with the issuance of a letter of administration in relation to a property in case the owner dies without a legal will.

A bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that in the proceedings under Section 278 of the Act, the necessary parties were the legal heirs of the deceased. The Court further stated that in some cases, the Municipal Corporation or the bank with whom the property was mortgaged might be impleaded as parties because they might have some semblance of legal rights over the property. However, a tenant stands on a different footing altogether since it could not contest the grant or refuse to issue a letter of administration.

Rajasthan HC Grants Relief To Constable Dismissed From Service 28 Years Back Over Age Dispute, Directs Govt To Extend All Retiral Benefits

Title: Shri Sunder Pal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 144

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a constable dismissed from service 28 years ago on the grounds of forging documents in relation to his age at the time of his appointment.

As per the competent authority, Petitioner could not have been below 25 years of age at the time of appointment (as required under applicable Rules) since he was married having three children. Thus he was dismissed from service in 1996.

Bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena found this reasoning unacceptable, stating that such situation was a common outcome of child marriages, prevalent at the time.

"In the remote rural areas in 1970's-80 the child marriages were solemnized in many cases...in the year 1981 a person may be married and may have three children before he attains the age of 25 years. Therefore the finding of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner cannot be below the age of 25 years at the time of appointment as he was a married and having three children, cannot be accepted,"

Power, Influence Must Never Eclipse Supremacy Of Law: Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail Of Former MLA For Threatening Witnesses

Title: Harshadhipati v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 145

The Rajasthan High Court cancelled the bail of former MLA Girraj Singh Malinga (“respondent”) in the assault case filed against him by the assistant engineer at JVVNL, Harshadhipati (“complainant”) in 2022. The Court found him to be misusing the liberty to showcase his strength of power by organizing a rally soon after getting released on bail and intimidating or threatening the witnesses and the complainant. It said:

“Power, influence, position, money, and sentiments, no matter how lofty, must never eclipse the supremacy of law…The actions and conduct of individuals should be in consonance with the spirit and letter of the law, thereby reinforcing the principle that no one is above the legal system.”

Suit Against Passing Off Maintainable Even If Plaintiff And Defendant Have Identical Registered Trademarks: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Kutbuddin Kanorwala v Zakir Hussain Kanorwala & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 146

The Rajasthan High Court held that a suit for passing off does not get affected by the two proprietors having similar registered trademarks and hence, it cannot be dismissed on account of Section 28(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

A bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur also ruled that Section 28(3) of the Act becomes relevant only when the identical or nearly resembling trademark in question belongs to a particular or same class of goods and services. If the trademark belongs to different classes, the registered proprietors are not immune from suits of trademark infringement against one another.

Rajasthan HC Directs Reinstatement Of Constable 24 Yrs After Dismissal, Rules Different Punishment To Co-Delinquents Violates Article 14

Title: Rajesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 147

Rajasthan High Court directed reinstatement of a constable who was dismissed from service 24 years ago, ruling that imposing harsher punishment on a co-delinquent as compared to the other accused, when the charges against both the persons are same, violates right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena made reference to the Supreme Court case of Rajendra Yadav v State of Madhya Pradesh & Others in which out of the 3 constables and a head constable charged for same acts, 2 were exonerated while one was dismissed from service and other was imposed with compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of dismissal of service to maintain parity in punishment among the co-delinquents ruling that otherwise, there would be violation of Article 14.

“Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident… Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident.”

Dishonour Of Cheque Against Valid Loan Sufficient To Prosecute U/S 138 NI Act, Drawee Need Not Have Money Lending License: Rajasthan HC

Title: Ishak Mohammad v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 148

The Rajasthan High Court made it clear that in a case of cheque dishonor, it is to be seen is if the cheque was issued in relation to a valid loan and was dishonored without payment, even after giving notice.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga said whether the complainant, that is drawee of the cheque, had a license to lend on interest is not relevant in the case of cheque dishonor.

It thus upheld an order of the trial court dismissing drawer's application under Section 91 CrPC seeking the complainant to produce his Income Tax Return and money lending license.

Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Rape Accused After Prosecutrix Claims She Concocted Case To 'Get Rid Of Husband'

Title: Narayan Lal v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 149

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused charged for rape under IPC as well as POCSO Act, primarily looking at a representation made by the prosecutrix to the Superintendent of Police that revealed that the rape case was merely a façade created by her to malign her own image so that her husband abandons her.

S.31 State Financial Corporation Act Only Provides Procedure For Enforcement Of Claims Against Debtor, Surety; No Decree Can Be Passed: Rajasthan HC

Title: Balvir Singh v R.F.C.Sriganganagar and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 150

Rajasthan High Court held that no independent execution petition is maintainable regarding a successful application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act 1951 (“the Act”) since the application under Section 31 cannot be termed as plaint in a suit in which a money decree could be passed by the court.

 The Court referred to a coordinate bench decision in N.L.P. Organics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation where it was held that while deciding an application under Section 31, the court could only grant the reliefs mentioned in the Section. Further it was held that the application under the Section could not be termed as a plaint in a suit and the corporation could not pray for a decree for its outstanding dues. Such a direction could be passed only in a money recovery suit and not in an application under Section 31 (1).

Rajasthan High Court Refuses Bail To Alleged Drug Peddler To Attend Sister's Marriage

Title: Rakesh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 151

The Rajasthan High Court denied interim bail to an accused under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, who sought to be released for 40 days to attend his sister's wedding.

The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that keeping in mind the charges of drug peddling pending against the accused, granting him bail might be a threat to public safety.

“Granting interim bail for marriage of petitioner's sister may pose a threat to public safety when the applicant is facing pending criminal charges like drug peddling. Keeping the applicant in custody ensures that any potential risks are mitigated while he attends said marriage. Allowing interim bail for said purpose raises concerns about the applicant's potential to flee from justice.”

Illegal, Arbitrary And Unconstitutional: Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Constable Dismissed From Service Without Inquiry

Title: Mukesh Kumar Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 152

Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the superintendent of police passed under Section 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“the Rules”) for being wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena also referred to the Supreme Court case of Union of India & Anr. v Tulsiram Patel in which powers under Rule 19(ii) were discussed in detail. In the case, it was held that Rule 19(ii) did not talk about absolute impracticability but that holding an inquiry was not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. It was further ruled that the disciplinary authority was not expected to dispense with the inquiry lightly or out of ulterior motives or merely to avoid an inquiry where the department's case was weak.

Hindu Deity Cannot Hold Land As 'Jagir' If Land Was Cultivated By Or Through Tenant: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Joga Ram v the Board of Revenue of Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 153

The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that pursuant to the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (“the Act”), Hindu Idols (deity) could hold lands as Jagir only when such land was cultivated by the Shebait/Pujari for such deity either themselves or through hired labour or servant engaged by them so as to be protected from resumption/acquisition under the Act.

If the land was given for cultivation to a tenant or was cultivated through a tenant, it became khatedari of the tenant on which the tenant had direct relations with the state, The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas said.

Confession U/S 27 Evidence Act Not Reliable Until There Is Discovery To Corroborate Its Veracity: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dheerap Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 154

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that any information gathered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Act”), is required to be corroborated and supported by recovering or discovering something in pursuance to that information which distinctly relates to the commission of the crime to verify the confession made by the accused to the police officer.

Trial/Investigation For FIR Lodged Before Enforcement Of New Criminal Laws To Be Governed By CrPC, Not BNSS: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Krishna Joshi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 155

The Bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that where an FIR was registered under Section 154 of CrPC prior to July 1, 2023, it would amount to a pending enquiry/investigation within Section 531(2)(a) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (“BNSS”). Hence, the entire subsequent investigation procedure and even the trial procedure in relation to that FIR shall be governed by CrPC and not BNSS.

“We are concerned here only with the savings clause contained in sub section 531(2)(a). A perusal thereof clearly reflect that, not only the pending trial / appeal, but even an inquiry and/or investigation, which is underway prior to coming into force of the BNSS, shall have to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973 and not under the BNSS, 2023.”

Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused Who Allegedly Open Fired On Police To Evade Arrest

Title: Koushala Ram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 156

Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused booked under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act who allegedly open fired at the policemen at the time of arrest.

The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni acknowledged the fact that no casualties were suffered by any policemen during the incident whereas the co-accused died during the scuttle and the applicant suffered injuries. Also, the fact of recovering poppy straw that too in substantial quantity of 332 grams was not mentioned in the FIR even though the vehicle was inspected at the time of the incident.

Accordingly, the Court held that the applicant had substantial grounds available to him for questioning the prosecution case and the bail application was granted.

Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Administrative Order Dismissing Plea Of Stenographer Challenging Adverse Remarks In Annual Assessment

Title: Pooran Chand Gupta v High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 Live Law (Raj) 157

The Rajasthan High Court set aside an administrative order dismissing a representation by an aggrieved stenographer, promoted to the post of private secretary cum judgment writer, against adverse remarks received in annual assessment.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Dev Dutt v Union of India in which it was observed that a representation made by a public servant must be decided by the concerned authority in a fair manner and by an authority higher than the one who passed the order against which the representation was filed. Otherwise, there was a likelihood that the representation would be rejected summarily without adequate consideration. This would result in fairness to public servants.

NDPS Act | Preparing Seizure Memo At Place Other Than Scene Of Recovery Makes Seizure Defective, Creates Reasonable Doubt: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Kuka Ram v the State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 158

Rajasthan High Court ruled that a seizure memo needs to be prepared by the seizure officer at the spot of recovery of contraband material under the NDPS as prescribed under the Standing Instruction issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau failing which the seizure becomes defective, raising reasonable doubt in relation to the manner of seizure.

The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni held that the procedures prescribed in the Standing Orders were based on logic and needed to be observed mandatorily because if rendered optional, these would turn into a “worthless piece of paper”. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court case of Khet Singh v Union of India in which it was held that if the search and seizure were in defiance of the law and procedure and there was a possibility of the collected evidence being tampered with, the evidence might not be admissible.

Availability Of Civil Remedy No Grounds To Disallow Continuation Of Criminal Proceedings, Both Remedies Are Co-Extensive: Rajasthan HC

Title: Girraj Bansal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 159

The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the availability of a civil remedy does not preclude setting of criminal proceedings in motion. It was held that the two remedies are not mutually exclusive but co-extensive having different content and consequences. It held:

“It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. Many a cheatings are committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions.”

Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Lodged In Bengaluru Citing Settlement Between Parties

Title: Astha Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 160

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a FIR lodged beyond its territorial jurisdiction- in Karnataka's Bengaluru, citing settlement between the married couple. A bench of Justice Sameer Jain, while quashing the FIR, cited a three-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012) to hold that subject to nature of dispute, in this case a matrimonial one, a case is eminently suitable to be considered for quashing of criminal proceedings, if the parties have buried the hatchet.

Submitting False Injury Report Highly Despicable, Dereliction Of Duty: Rajasthan HC Affirms Compulsory Retirement Of Medical Officer

Title: Dr. K C Chaudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 161

Rajasthan High Court refused to grant relief to the medical officer who had committed dereliction of duty by submitting a factually wrong injury report in a case. Frowning upon the conduct as highly despicable, the Court observed that for such conduct, compulsory retirement was not a disproportionate punishment warranting any interference of the Court. The bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal held:

“It is apparent that the petitioner has submitted false report and committed dereliction in discharge of his duty. None can undermine the importance of true and correct medico-legal report in the injury cases which has great role in just and fair disposal of the cases. Such a conduct by the Medical Officer is highly despicable as it causes interference with the administration of justice.”

Rajasthan HC Declines Relief To Candidates Terminated From Govt Post After One Year Of Service Due To Modified Answer Key And Revised Merit List

Title: Brijsundar Regar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 162

Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of petitions filed by aggrieved individuals who were terminated from their post of livestock assistants one year after their service, because of a modified answer key and consequent change in the merit list.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that the appointment letters were unequivocal and categorically clear that the appointment was not absolute but was contingent on subsequent litigation and clearing of the probation period. Furthermore, it was also mentioned in the appointment letter, that the service could be terminated without recorded reasons during this probation period.

Expert Committee's Answer Key Can Only Be Interfered With If Demonstrably Wrong, Must Be Assumed To Be Correct In Case Of Ambiguity: Rajasthan HC

Title: Mahendra Kumar Jat & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 163

Rajasthan High Court held that interference by the Court with regard to the correctness of an answer key published by the expert committee is permissible only if it is demonstrated wrong, without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization and only in rare or exceptional cases.

Otherwise, it was stated by the division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta, that the Court should presume the correctness of the answers and proceed on that assumption and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority, rather than to the candidate.

"Cruelty Case By Daughter-In-Law Not Related To Official Duty": Rajasthan HC Grants Retiral Benefits To Deceased Govt Employee's Heirs After 21 Yrs

Title: Raghuveer Narayan v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 164

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the heirs of a deceased government employee whose retiral benefits were suspended by the government pursuant to the filing of a case under Section 498A, IPC against his son and all other family members including himself by his daughter in law.

The The bench of Justice Sameer Jain held that retiral benefits awarded at the time of superannuation cannot be subject to suspension upon an alleged criminal offence when the said offence was not related to the official discharge of the duties.

Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award, Repeated Non-Compliance; Rajasthan High Court Sentences Director Of Company Civil Imprisonment

Case Title: Emeraldstone Management Sia vs Mamta Hygiene Products Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 165

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati ordered the director of a company to one month of civil imprisonment for failing to disclose its assets in the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.

The bench noted that:

“from perusal of the various order-sheets, it is apparent that the respondent-company has failed to comply with the judgment dated 26.09.2023 as has not disclosed its assets by way of filing an affidvit within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the said judgment and further has not complied with the directions passed by this Court dated 22.03.2024 as has not placed on record its Income-tax return along with the audited balance sheet of last five financial years by the next date as directed vide order dated 22.03.2024 and has also failed to deposit the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in the bank account of the applicant-company as directed in the order dated 22.03.2024.”

Contract Terminated By An Awardee Following Due Process Cannot Be Subsequently Novated By Awardee Itself: Rajasthan High Court

Title: PMP Infratech Private Limited & Ors. v Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 166

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that a contract terminated by an awardee following due process cannot be novated by the awardee itself.

The Court also held that an administrative order cannot set at nought a duly considered decision or adjudicated order which had bearing on the civil or business rights of contracting parties.

A bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta held that "the grant and termination of the contract by the State or instrumentalities of the State have to conform to principles of transparency and fairness, which is the corner stone of good governance. The State cannot act arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously – It cannot resurrect a terminated contract in the manner done in the case in hands.”

Rajasthan High Court Directs Action Against Investigating Officer For Inserting Inaccurate, 'Imaginary' Facts In Dowry Death Case

Title: Prabhu Ram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 167

Rajasthan High Court identified serious shortcomings and inaccuracy in the investigation and charge sheet filed by an IO in a case of dowry death, and directed DG Police and Superintendent of Police to take necessary action. The Court observed that it was imperative for the IO to maintain high level of accuracy and candidness in the investigation of an offence as grave as dowry death.

The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed, “It was imperative on the part of the Investigating Officer that investigation of an offence such as dowry-death maintains a high level of accuracy and candidness. I.O. was also an integral part of prosecution. Therefore, copy of the order be sent to the DG Police Rajasthan and S.P. concerned for information and necessary action.

Right To Speedy Trial Cannot Be Taken Away Citing Heinousness Of Crime: Rajasthan High Court Releases Murder Accused After 3 Years

Title: Kailash Chand v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 168

Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused charged for murder on the grounds of protracted trial. The court observed that right to have a speedy trial was guaranteed by the Constitution of India and it could not be taken away from the accused for the reason of seriousness or heinousness of the crime. It is imperative for the prosecution to adduce evidence at the earliest if the accused is languishing in jail, it added.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed,

“Looking to the snail's pace progress of the trial, it can be assumed that a further more time will be consumed in completion of the trial. As on date, it cannot be speculated that how more time will be taken in completion of the judicial proceedings. This Court is of the view that an accused cannot be kept behind the bars in a pending trial for want of production of evidence against him.”

Witnesses Of Extra-Judicial Confession Related To Victim, 'Tailor-Made' To Bolster Prosecution Case: Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To Kidnapping Accused

Title: Surajbhan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 169

Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused booked under Section 365 for kidnapping upon finding that after the eye-witness of the prosecution turned hostile, the case relied on two other prosecution witnesses to whom the accused had allegedly confessed the commission of the offence. However, the Court found that witnesses to be tailor-made only to bolster the prosecution case.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali highlighted two peculiar facts about the scenario. Firstly, it was stated that the two witnesses of the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused were total strangers to him while they were relatives of the victim i.e. the opposite side.

Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked For Sending 'Dummy Candidate' To Take Govt Examination On His Behalf

Title: Prem Raj v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 170

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused booked for sending a dummy in an examination for the post of teacher based on the revelation that the candidate was not apprehended in the examination hall, and rather that the case was lodged one year after the examination was held.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali highlighted a significant fact that despite the allegation by the examination department, the dummy candidate was not apprehended in the examination hall, rather the case came to be filed one year after the examination was held. The Court said:

“The startling fact of the case would be that the candidate was not apprehended in the examination hall, rather the case was lodged after one year of the examination. Thus, a strong arguable case exists in favour of the petitioner.”

S.24 CPC | Successful Transfer Petition Before District Court Cannot Be Challenged By Filing Another Transfer Petition In HC: Rajasthan HC

Title: Shri Jain Swetambar Sangh Dhamotar & Ors. v Gajendra Singh

Citation: 2024 Live Law (Raj) 171

Rajasthan High Court ruled that a successful transfer petition under Section 24, CPC, before a district court cannot be challenged before the high court by filing another transfer petition under Section 24, CPC.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg opined that Section 24 provides for concurrent jurisdiction of the district court and the high court, hence, an unsuccessful party before a district court may approach the high court invoking the same jurisdiction but the party opposing would not be allowed to do so.

Advance Ruling Application Not Restricted Only To Supplier: Rajasthan High Court Quashes AAR's Order Rejecting Application

Title: M/s Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Versus State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 172

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, quashed the AAR's order rejecting the application for the advance ruling as not maintainable on the grounds that the applicant was not the supplier.

The bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Ashutosh Kumar observed that the appeal against the advance ruling is provided under Section 100 of the CGST Act. The concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer, or the applicant can prefer an appeal against the ruling given under Section 98(4). No appeal is provided against rejection of the application under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act. The application of the petitioner was ousted at threshold under Section 98(2) as not maintainable. Section is unambiguous that an appeal can be filed only against the orders pronounced under Section 98(4) of the CGST Act.

Seizure Memo Loses Credibility If Prepared At Police Station And Not Place Of Recovery: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Major Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 173

Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to an accused booked for attempt to murder and under the NDPS Act, observing that the credibility of the seizure memo loses its significance if it was not prepared at the same place from where the recovery was made but was taken by the police to the police station to prepare the same.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali highlighted the fact that during cross-examination, the seizing officer mentioned that all the memos including seizure memo, recovery memos, etc were prepared in the police station. The Court considered this fact to be the one putting a dent on the prosecution case since it was required by law that recovery memo needs to be prepared at the same place from where the recovery was made.

"Discrimination Based On Physical Attribute": Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Woman Denied Geologist Post Citing 1cm Short Height

Title: Monika Kanwar Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 174

In a significant ruling by the Rajasthan High Court, the bench of Justice Farjnad Ali granted relief to a woman fighting to get the post of the geologist that she had secured based on merit but was denied by the government since she was considered 1 cm shorter than the minimum limit prescribed in some guidelines.

The Court held that when the service rules for the post did not prescribe any criteria in relation to height, rejecting a meritorious candidate based on certain non-mandatory instructions amounted to discrimination based on physical attributes and consequently a violation of fundamental rights of the aspirant.

Rajasthan HC Orders Action Against Medical Officer Who Erroneously Classified Victim's Injuries As Life-Threatening In Attempt To Murder Case

Title: Bhanwar Khan v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 175

A bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Mishra at the Rajasthan High Court frowned upon an allegedly erroneous report prepared by a medical officer in an attempt to murder case and directed the Secretary, Medical and Health Department to take appropriate action against the officer. The Court directed the order to be sent to the Secretary, Medical and Health Department for appropriate action to be taken against the errant officer.

Trial Court Rejecting Application For FSL Report Of Weapon In Attempt To Murder Case Leads To Miscarriage Of Justice: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Mohd. Atik Sheikh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 176

The Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of an Additional Sessions Judge that had disallowed the application filed by the complainant seeking an FSL report of the alleged weapon and the blood-stained clothes in a case of attempt to murder.

The A bench of Justice Arun Monga held that denying the FSL report which would assist the trial court in correctly concluding the role of the accused was a miscarriage of justice. It was held:

“As regards the seeking of the FSL report, same will rather go a long way to assist the learned trial court in coming to the correct conclusion qua the role attributed to the accused in causing injuries. To deny the application without seeking the report would thus result in a miscarriage of justice.”

Rajasthan HC Denies Relief To Govt Job Aspirants Excluded From Selection Process For Improperly Filling OMR Sheet

Title: Payal Soni & Anr. v Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 177

The Rajasthan High Court denied relief to candidates of a public examination, who incorrectly filled their OMR sheets after failing to follow instructions, leading to the rejection of their sheets from the evaluation process. The A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar said:

“It is of utmost importance that in order to preserve the sanctity of the selection process for filling up posts under public employmentthe entire process is not only clearly laid down but is scrupulously followed not only by the Examination Agency but also by the candidates.”

No Sufficient Cause: Rajasthan HC Declines To Condone 'Inordinate Delay' In Filing Appeal By Party Who Made Unsubstantiated Mental Illness Claims

Title: Prachin Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 178

The Rajasthan High Court rejected an application for condonation of delay filed after 3 years due to the petitioner's alleged mental illness leading him to be unaware of the proceedings.

A single bench of Justice Avneesh Jhinghan observed that the delay could not be condoned mechanically in the absence of any sufficient reason. It was found that the petitioner had failed to furnish relevant material to prove his claims of mental illness which allegedly prevented him from being aware of the proceedings which were initiated.

When Multiple Contradictory Dying Declarations Are Recorded, One Given To Magistrate Must Be Relied Upon: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Jeet Singh v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 179

The Rajasthan High Court reversed and set aside a conviction order after 35 years, acquitting the surviving accused out of the total three accused who were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in 1989.

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that in case of multiple dying declarations which are contradictory to one another, the statement recorded by a Magistrate or a higher officer can be relied upon keeping in mind the elements of truthfulness and being free of suspicion that are required to rely upon dying declarations.

“Writ Of Quo Warranto Meant To Prevent Abuse Of Public Offices”: Rajasthan High Court Removes Ineligible Nagar Parishad Executive Officer

Title: Vishnu Kumar Saini v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 180

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the very purpose of seeking a writ of quo warranto is to prevent the abuse or usurpation of public offices and to ensure that those who hold such positions do so legitimately and within the bounds of the law.

The observation was made by Justice Sameer Jain while setting aside the Respondent's appointment, belonging to Executive Officer-III category, as the Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad of Chomu town near Jaipur.

The bench held that as per the Rajasthan Municipal Service (Administrative and Technical) Rules 1963, only a person belonging to the category of a Commissioner could be appointed as the Executive Officer of any Municipal Council.

Recovery Notice Issued By Mining Dept To Be Preceded With Demand Order: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Damodar Lal Gupta v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 181

The Rajasthan High Court set aside recovery notices issued by the Department of Mining and Geology, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, for recovering amount payable against Short Term Permit (“STP”) granted to the petitioner, without any preceding order of demand of such recovery.

Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed it was trite law that recovery notices have to be preceded with an order creating demand for such recovery.

Depression, Old Age, Assessee's Status As Small-Scale Surveyor To Be Considered As Genuine Hardship; Rajasthan High Court Condones Delay

Title: Padam Raj Bhandari Versus UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 182

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the application seeking condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act in order to claim a refund for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15 on the grounds of genuine hardship.

The bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that the depression, old age, long pendency of the issue, and the petitioner's status as a small-scale surveyor with no negativity in revenue collection by the tax authorities (like scrutiny) attached have to be considered as genuine hardship.

Refusal To Undergo Medical Examination Not Enough To Negate Minor's Accusation Of Rape: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dinesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 183

The Rajasthan High Court made it clear that a minor rape victim's refusal to undergo medical examination alone cannot be the basis to disbelieve the allegations levelled by her.

The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni thus refused anticipatory bail to a POCSO accused on the alleged ground of false implication. It said,

“On perusal of the record and upon consideration of the submissions, it would be clear that in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., victim has specifically alleged offence of rape against petitioner. In that view of the matter, if victim had refused to undergo medical examination, her above statement cannot be negated on this basis alone and it cannot be said that petitioner has been falsely implicated.”

August, 2024

Suspending Registration Of Vehicle Without Providing Opportunity For Hearing Is Void Ab Initio, Illegal: Rajasthan High Court

Title: M/S Ak Jilshan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 184

The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal by the appellant challenging an order of the Transport Department suspending his vehicle's registration without affording any opportunity for a hearing.

It was held that the order was made by the Transport Department in excess of its lawfully prescribed authority and thus was void ab initio illegal.

The Court observed that when there was an allegation of not providing any opportunity for hearing, it was not sufficient to state that the notice was issued, but some proof of service of notice in the manner prescribed by law needed to be placed on record. The Court held that no such evidence was placed on record from the side of the respondent department.

Rajasthan High Court Calls For 'Zero Tolerance Policy' Against Unqualified Proxy Teachers In Govt Schools, Issues Interim Directions

Title: Manju Garg v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 185

The Rajasthan High Court took serious note against the increasing issue of teacher absenteeism, and ineligible and unqualified proxy teachers in government schools of Rajasthan, wherein government employed teachers illegally appoint unemployed youths who may not even have the basis qualifications to teach, to work in their place, "playing with the future and career of the students at large".

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the Rajasthan government to launch a campaign of “Zero Tolerance Policy of Proxy Teachers” with a motto “Attendance of teachers in school is must and proxy teachers are not acceptable in any way” and have issued interim directions to be followed for implementation of the policy and campaign.

'Case Of Judicial Indiscipline': Rajasthan High Court Proposes Action Against Judicial Officer For Ignoring HC Order While Framing Charges

Title: Gopal Mehra & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 186

Considering the actions of the trial court as a case of 'disobedience and judicial indiscipline' for ignoring the directions issued by a single bench of the Rajasthan High Court, the Court directed the matter to be placed before the same coordinate bench for taking action against the presiding officer of the concerned trial court.

The Court held that the trial court not only ignored that order passed by the coordinate bench, but also deliberately passed an unreasoned order, erroneously framing charges under Section 307 when no such charge was made out from any angle. Hence, the Court set aside the order of the trial court and discharged the accused from the charges under Section 307. The Court ruled this to be a case of disobedience and judicial indiscipline.

Drug Abuse Among Youth Affects Societal Harmony, Addicts Are An Added Burden To Law-Abiding Population: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Shakti Gurjar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 187

The Rajasthan High Court rejected the bail application of an accused booked under the NDPS Act and observed that violation of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act (the “Act”) could not be considered by the Court at the stage of granting bail. These questions can only be answered at the trial stage in light of all the evidence put forth. It said:

“Youth forms the basic unit of the society. The harmony of the society depends on its younger members. When the members of society become drug abusers then it disturbs the entire societal harmony. Drugs and crime cannot be considered separately, in isolation from each other, especially if they emerge from a common set of circumstances…The addicts are, therefore, an added burden to the law-abiding population.”

Authorities Not Bound To Choose Highest Bidder In Tender Process, Bidder's Right Always Provisional: Rajasthan High Court

Title: M/S Sant International Jewellers v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 188

The Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea against an order of the State Government by which an application of the petitioner for allotment of a plot in the Special Economic Zone (“SEZ”) to set up a Gems and Jewelry industry was rejected.

A bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the scope of court interference in tender matters was very limited since it was not a case of discrimination or irrationality. It was stated that since all the applications were rejected uniformly to re-advertise the plots on revised rates, it would not be plausible to interfere with the decision.

Right To Choose Partner: Rajasthan High Court Issues SOP For Police Protection Of Major Couples Facing Threats

Title: Suman Meena & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 189

Rajasthan High Court issued a SOP, taking note of multiplicity of pleas filed by major couples apprehending threats of extra-legal harassment and violence at the hands of their families or other social actors or groups and thus seeking police protection.

The Court highlighted that such threats are a direct attack on the constitutional rights of the major couples, especially under Articles 14 and 21. The Court further stressed upon the institutional role of police in safeguarding the constitutional rights of such couples. In this regard, the Court issued directions to be put in place by the State Government to strengthen the mechanism that could protect not only such couples but any other individual who might be facing extra-legal threats to their lives.

Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Murder Accused Having No Mention In FIR But Who Accompanied Principal Accused To Crime Scene

Title: Kulddeep v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 190

Rajasthan High Court rejected the bail application of one of the many accused in a murder case, who was neither named in the FIR nor had any allegations levelled against him.

The Court observed that even though the applicant had not actively taken part in actually and physically attacking the victim, by being involved in other manner in the crime, the gravity of his role did not decrease.

“In view of the enormous prima facie material placed on record in respect of the applicant, the allegations leveled against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation in the instant case, the role attributed to the petitioner and the case set up against petitioner in its entirety, the petitioner is not found entitled to be released on bail.”

Service Rules Prevail Over Conditions In Recruitment Advertisement: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Termination Of Sanitation Workers By Municipal Authority

Title: Payal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. and batch petitions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 191

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to various sanitation workers whose services were terminated as their experience letter was not certified by the competent authority mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the post.

A single judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in its August 2 order held that since such a requirement was not prescribed by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employee Service) Rules, 2012 the condition mentioned in the advertisement/notification was foreign to the Rules.

Negligent Conduct, Caused 19-Yr Delay: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against Ex-Parte Decree In Recovery Suit Due To Non-Appearance

Title: Sajwar Khan v Gaje Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 192

Noting the "negligent conduct" of a man in delaying the trial of a recovery suit by almost 19 years, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed his plea for setting aside an ex-parte decree which was passed due to his non-appearance in the suit.

A single judge bench of Justice Nupur Bhati observed, "Thus, upon perusal of the record, and the findings of the learned Trial Court, it is clear that the conduct of the defendant has been negligent and causing delay and the entire factual incident at least makes it clear that he has been delaying the case repeatedly and the original suit has been delayed for almost 19 years".

Person Aggrieved By Unfair Investigation Of FIR May Approach Superior Police Officer U/S 36 CrPC: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Interference

Title: Kailash Tolani v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 193

The Rajasthan High Court held that in case unfair or improper investigation of an FIR, the aggrieved person can seek recourse by approaching a superior police officer as per Section 36 CrPC.

Single bench of Justice Arun Monga rejected a petition filed directly before it, alleging slow and unfair probe. It held,

"The investigation is still at a very nascent stage, and the petition appears to have been filed prematurely without awaiting its outcome. Even otherwise, in my opinion, the petitioner ought to have availed of other available legal remedies for redressal of his grievance before approaching this Court."

Appeal To Be Decided On Merits Irrespective Of Some Laches Or Delay On Part Of Assessee: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Shree Shakti Minerals Versus The Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 194

The Rajasthan High Court held that a right to appeal as provided under the statute must be decided on merits irrespective of some laches or delay on the part of the assessee.

The bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that the statutory provisions of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act would bind the statutory authority, which cannot condone the delay except the circumstances envisaged under the CGST Act, but limitations are not applied in a writ proceeding.

Arbitral Tribunal First To Adjudge Non-Arbitrability Of Dispute And Ground Of Res-Judicata, Courts Can Have Second Look After Award: Rajasthan HC

Title: Dilip Kumar v Dharampal Choudhary & Anr. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 195

The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati at the Rajasthan High Court accepted an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator and observed that the issue of non-arbitrability of a dispute under an arbitration agreement falls under the domain of the arbitral tribunal in the first instance and the courts have the power to only “second look” after passing of the arbitral award. The Court also opined that the question regarding the claim being barred by res judicata does not arise for consideration in proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, and hence, it also needs to be dealt with by the arbitral tribunal only.

Granting Bonus Marks In Recruitment Of Certain Govt Posts Pure Policy Decision, Not Discriminatory If Not Granted For All Posts: Rajasthan HC

Title: Rajeev Sidana & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 196

Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed with the prayer to direct the Government to grant 30% bonus marks for appointment on the post of Medical Officer (Dental), since such bonus marking was done by the Government for various other posts.

The Court held that prescribing eligibility conditions including bonus marking was purely a policy decision falling within the domain of the State Government that cannot be interfered with unless it was demonstrably capricious and arbitrary. It was observed that,

“If the State Government has chosen not to provide any bonus marks for the services rendered by persons like petitioners on the post of Medical Officer (Dental), then the same cannot be held to be discriminatory simply on the ground that in other recruitment processes, the State Government generally provides for grant of bonus marks. It is the policy decision of the State Government to grant or not to grant the bonus marks in a particular recruitment and the same cannot be interfered with unless it is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary.”

Affiliation Cancelled After Completion Of Course: Rajasthan HC Directs Nursing Council To Register Students Whose College's Affiliation Was Rejected

Title: Kapil Kumar Labana & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 197

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the graduates of Tirupati College of Nursing (“College”) who were denied registration by the Rajasthan Nursing Council (“RNC”) on account of the affiliation of their college, the Tirupati College of Nursing being canceled by the RNC for want of requisite NOC from the State Government.

The Court directed that the students had taken admission in the College when its affiliation was valid which came to be cancelled only after these students had completed their course.

Mines & Minerals Act | Vehicle Can Be Released On Furnishing Bond Of Amount Equal To Present Value If Confiscation Proceedings Aren't Initiated: Rajasthan HC

Title: Sanjib v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 198

The Rajasthan High Court laid down rules for the release of vehicles that have been seized under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act”).

The Court held that if confiscation proceedings get initiated under the Act, then the vehicle(s) in question can be released only on payment of the penalty amount and the compounding fees.

However, if no such proceedings have begun and only an appeal has been filed against the penalty/compounding order passed by the mining officer, then the petitioner shall be granted liberty to approach the competent court to get the vehicle released which can be allowed on the petitioner furnishing a bond or a bank guarantee for an amount equaling to the current value of the impounded vehicle.

Rajasthan High Court Appreciates Child's Gesture Towards Bench Mediating His Custody Conflict, Calls It 'Symbol Of Strength Of Mediation Law'

Title: Rajesh Bishnoi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 199

The Rajasthan High Court while hearing the custody case of a 6-year-old was gifted flowers and a hand-crafted pen stand by the child as a symbol of appreciation for the mediation sessions held with him. While acknowledging the gesture of the boy, a division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman said:

“This Court acknowledges and appreciates the creativity and positivity of the child and also his sweet gesture and thank him for the wonderful gifts, which he has brought for us. At the end, the child also though in a soft tone, expressed his thanks to the Court. We shall preserve the precious gifts made of craft paper in our Chambers as a 'Symbol of Strength of Mediation Law'.”

Non-Compliance With CrPC, NDPS Act Cannot Be Argued At Stage Of Bail In International Drug Smuggling Cases: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Balveer v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 200

The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to an individual booked under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) for allegedly being involved in an attempt to smuggle drugs from Pakistan.

The Court held that non-compliance with provisions under the NDPS Act or CrPC cannot be argued at the stage of bail in a case of international smuggling of contraband.

"On perusal of record, it is prima facie revealed that issues sought to be argued by the petitioner regarding alleged non-compliance of various provisions of NDPS Act and Cr.P.C. cannot be countenanced at this stage in such a case of international smuggling of contraband drug."

Govt Employees On Probation Not 'Temporary Employees', Cannot Be Terminated Without Departmental Action: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Mahesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 201

Rajasthan High Court affirmed that a government employee who has been appointed by a regular mode of selection, and is on probation, cannot be treated as a temporary government employee whose services can be terminated by giving one month notice under Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 (“the Rules”) which is meant for temporary employees.

Drug Smuggling | 'NCB & State Police Embroiled In Conflict To Attribute Criminal Liability To Each Other': Rajasthan HC Transfers Case To CBI

Title: Khiya Ram Jat & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 202

The Rajasthan High Court took up a peculiar case concerning drug smuggling wherein the Narcotics Control Bureau (“NCB”) and the Rajasthan State Police were accusing each other's officials of being involved with an accused in the case and had filed counter cases against one another.

Due to the complexity of the matter, Justice Arun Monga directed the investigation to be transferred to a neutral and independent third party i.e. the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”), Jodhpur. 

“Factual narrative in the case herein is rather glaring. It appears that two Investigative Agencies are at loggerheads, embroiled in a direct conflict, each striving to attribute criminal culpability concerning the contraband in question i.e. 5 kg of opium. After deliberating the entire matter and on perusal of case file, a consensus has been arrived at by all present, that, to ensure a neutral, independent, and fair investigation, it is considered rather expedient to transfer the entire matter to a third neutral agency i.e. the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Jodhpur.”

Personal Liberty: Rajasthan HC Converts NBW Into Bailable, Says Arrest Order Can't Be Passed Mechanically For Mere Production In Court

Title: Madan Lal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 203

Rajasthan High Court modified a trial court order issuing non-bailable warrants against an individual accused in a dowry complaint on their failure to appear before the court, irrespective of the fact that a negative final report was filed by the investigation officer in the case.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that personal liberty of a citizen could not be taken so lightly as to mechanically pass orders to arrest him, merely for production before the court unless there was a deliberate attempt to evade court process.

[POCSO] Victim's Emotional Well-Being Must Be Balanced With Rights Of Accused: Rajasthan HC Grants Parole To Father Convicted Of Raping Daughter

Title: Shankar Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 204

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition for 15 days of parole filed by a father convicted of raping his daughter. The convict had absconded during his first parole which was granted in 2018 and his father had denied giving any undertaking for his conduct during his application for second parole in 2022.

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that a balance needed to be achieved between the legislative intent of POCSO, that there should be minimal contact between the convict and the victim, and the statutory rights of the convict. Accordingly, it was directed that while being out on parole, the petitioner shall reside at a place that is away from the residence of the victim and shall not visit her.

Denying Govt Appointment Solely Due To Pending Criminal Case Not Involving Moral Turpitude Is Unjust And Arbitrary: Rajasthan HC

Title: Ranveer Kumar v Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 205

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to an aspirant for a government job 9 years after his candidature was rejected, despite being meritorious, on the grounds of a pending criminal case against him.

The Court observed that firstly, denying government employment merely on the grounds of a pending criminal case was illegal, arbitrary and unjust because as per criminal jurisprudence, an accused was considered innocent until proven guilty. Secondly, the Court also highlighted that the offences for which the petitioner was charged were petty, involving no moral turpitude.

"No Evidence Against Accused": Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside NDPS Case Against Individual Booked By Police Due To Mistaken Identity

Title: Bhopal Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 206

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a person wrongly arrayed in an NDPS case by the police, without conducting any investigation regarding his identity, solely relying upon the statement of the co-accused.

The Court observed that all material disclosed that the petitioner was not the person appearing in the statements of the co-accused but some other person having a different name. The Court held that in the event of lack of any direct material proving that the petitioner was the same person as mentioned by the co-accused, he could not be arrayed as an accused merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused.

Future Of Students Cannot Be Impacted: Rajasthan High Court Directs RUHS To Declare Exam Results Despite Affiliation Dispute Of Pharmacy College

Title: Shri Sawai College of Pharmacy & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 207

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to 60 students who had taken admission in Shri Sawai College of Pharmacy (“College”) and had spent two years in learning a course, however declaration of their results was put on hold by the examining authority i.e. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (“University”) since the approval of the College by the Pharmacy Council of India (“Council”) was under dispute.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that even though granting of admission to these students by the College was irregular, however, dismissing the petition would impact the future of these 60 students who had bona-fidely taken admission in the College and had spent two years assuming that the College was entitled to admit them.

Additional Director Under Central Govt Health Scheme Has No Authority To De-Empanel Hospital: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Medipulse Hospital v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 208

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the Medipulse Hospital (“the Hospital”) which was de-empanelled from the Central Government Health Scheme (“CGHS/Scheme”) for five years by the Government of India pursuant to a complaint against the Hospital by a retired central government employee alleging deficient services by the Hospital.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that there was no statutory provision or stipulation for de-empaneling a Hospital that too for five years from the CGHS that could be seen as granting power to the Additional Director, CGHS to de-empanel a hospital from the scheme.

S. 413 BNSS | Victim Does Not Require Special Leave To Appeal Against Acquittal Of Accused: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vikram Manshani v Praveen Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 209

Rajasthan High Court held that no special leave is required to file an appeal under Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), against an acquittal order wherein the complainant in the case is the victim himself.

The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar observed that Section 413 of BNSS corresponded to Section 372, CrPC where the proviso laid down the right of a victim to appeal against an order of acquittal, or an order convicting the accused for a lesser offence, or imposing inadequate compensation.

Industrial Disputes Act | Whether Person Raising Dispute Is A Workman Can Only Be Decided By Labour Court, Not By Govt: Rajasthan HC

Title: Mukesh Kumar v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 210

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a government employee who was dismissed from his job without a hearing 15 years ago, by directing the government to refer his industrial dispute to the labour court.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Government of India (“respondent”) where the respondent had refused to make reference for settlement of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. It was held that,

“The function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function. It, therefore, cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis. The question whether the person raising the dispute was a workman or not, cannot be decided by the Government, in exercise of its administrative function under Section 10(1) of the Act. This dispute is required to be adjudicated by the competent Labour Court after its reference.”

Delay In Adjudication Doesn't Affect Justice Earned On Merits: Rajasthan HC Orders Appointment Of Civil Judge Candidate Named In Criminal Case

Title: Jubair Bhati v Rajasthan High Court & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 211

The Rajasthan High Court laid down that justice earned on merits of the case by litigants shall not be adversely affected in cases pending for a long time due to prolonged adjudication with no interim order operating.

In doing so, the high court observed that the rights of a person needs to be protected against its dilution due to such delay.

A division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman opined that the "majesty of Rule of Law" requires that a person who has approached the Court in time and without any delay, who has laid threadbare all his details without any failure and remains under the umbrella of the adjudication for a long time, cannot be denied the benefit due to time lapse during which the matter remained pending.

Unfair, Tainted Probe: Rajasthan High Court Transfers To CBI Murder Case Of 22Yr Old From "Marginalised Community"

Title: Abhishek & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 212

While hearing a murder case involving the bajri (sand) mafia the Rajasthan High Court transferred the matter to CBI after observing that the investigation conducted by the State Police and CID had been so "unfair, tainted and incomplete" that it had "pricked the judicial conscience" of the Court.

The High Court further said that in a sensitive matter such as this one where offences against marginalised communities is alleged to have been committed, the investigation authorities had "miserably failed in their task to uphold the tenets of a fair investigation" as stipulated by the Cr.P.C. and the SC/ST Act wherein despite knowledge of a cognizable offense, no timely FIR was registered, log-book was not maintained and the roznamcha was not prepared.

No Provision In Law Prescribing Sisters To Be Legal Representatives When Wife, Son And Daughter (First Class Heirs) Surviving: Rajasthan HC

Title: Smt. Kherunisa v Lrs of Jai Shiv Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 213

Rajasthan High Court ruled that sisters cannot be considered legal representatives of a deceased individual especially where the first class heirs including the wife, son and daughter of the deceased were surviving.

“In the present matter, essentially the estate of the plaintiff would be represented by his first class heirs which undisputedly would be his wife, son and daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out to any provision of law which prescribes for the sisters to be the legal representatives even where the first class heirs of a deceased plaintiff are surviving.”

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment As Income Tax Dept. Failed To Hold Proper Investigation

Title: PCIT Versus Smt. Sonal Jain

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 214

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed the income tax reassessment and held that the Income Tax Department had not done any investigation or held an inquiry. There was no other material except the value determined by the A.O.

The bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Ashutosh Kumar has observed that the additions were made solely based on the order passed by the AO determining the value of the goods imported. The order passed by the AO was quashed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

Pre-Arb Step(s) Cannot Be Treated As Mandatory If Could Not Be Fructified: Rajasthan High Court

Title: M/S Larsen and Tourbo v Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Project & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 215

The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal at the Rajasthan High Court opined that where pre-arbitration steps mentioned in the agreement could not be fructified, it could not be held that those were mandatory in nature and in the event of failure of these no arbitration could be initiated. The Court held that it was a well settled principle of law that an arbitration agreement being a commercial one needed to be interpreted in a manner so as to give effect to the intention of the parties of referring a dispute to arbitration, rather than invalidating the same on technicalities.

Doctrine Of Proportionality In Service Matters Not Applicable When Employment Itself Is Based On Fraud: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. v Gyan Chand 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 216

The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the doctrine of proportionality in service matters cannot be invoked in relation to an employee whose basis of attaining employment was fraudulent.

It was also held that the High Court's scope of interference with a disciplinary authority's decision on the quantum of penalty in service matters is minimal.

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that the doctrine of proportionality could not be invoked to favour an employee who attained employment based on a forged document. The court said that in such cases, no length of tenure could create any sympathy in the minds of the Court to reduce the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.

Power Of Attorney Holder Who Is Also Manager Of A Trust Is Its Trustee, Can Lead Evidence On Its Behalf: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Shri Ramniwas Dham Trust v Nirmla Choudhary & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 217

The Rajasthan High Court observed that a power of attorney holder of a trust who is also its manager holds the capacity of a trustee and so can depose as well as lead evidence on behalf of the trust.

The High Court held that it was an admitted fact that the power of attorney holder was also the manager of the trust. The Court referred to the definition of “trustee” and “working trustee” under the Rajasthan Public trust Act, 1959 and observed that the definitions were explicit about the fact that the manager of a trust holds the capacity of a trustee. And in turn the power of attorney holder who was also the manager of the trust, was also holding the capacity of a trustee.

MV Act | Light Motor Vehicles License Sufficient For Driving Transport Vehicles Below 7500 Kgs, No Separate License Needed: Rajasthan High Court

Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Smt. Madni Bai & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 218

The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that a transport vehicle weighing less than 7500 Kgs does not need a separate driving license other than the one issued under Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) for driving a Light Motor Vehicle (“LMV”).

“That there is no requirement to obtain a separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive a transport vehicle of such class without endorsement to that effect…”

"Act-Only Insurance" Of Private Vehicle Only Covers Third-Party, Not Occupants: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside 'Recover & Pay' Order Against HDFC Ergo

Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v Smt. Rajbala & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 219

Rajasthan High Court affirmed that in the case of a private vehicle insured against the “Act only Policy”, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the occupants of the vehicle since they are not considered to be the “third parties” as required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“Act”). The Court said:

“The position of law as it stands at present is that in case of a private vehicle insured against “Act only Policy”, the liability of occupants is not covered as the protection of Chapter-XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is only available against the third party risks and the occupants of a private vehicle are not third parties. And in such cases direction to pay and recover cannot be issued to the insurer.”

Forest Officer Suspended For Acting Against Alleged Poaching Of Deer By Villagers: Rajasthan HC Quashes Suspension, Flags Colorable Exercise Of Power

Title: Ashok Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 220

Rajasthan High Court ruled that powers to suspend a civil servant under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 shall be used by the competent authority with due caution and vigilance, only after considering its necessity and recording the reasons behind the satisfaction of the same.

The Court held that suspending a civil servant without recording such reasons, only by instructions in circulars, or by word of mouth, or a slip of pen, amounts to a colourable exercise of power.

Qualification Of “Adeeb” Is Equivalent To Class 10th Qualification: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

Title: Gomi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 221

While reiterating that the educational qualification termed as "Adeeb" is equivalent to Secondary Examination (10th Class), the Rajasthan High Court directed the appointment of a woman to the post of Health Worker (Female) which had the eligibility criteria of 10th standard qualification.

Referring to the decision of a coordinate bench (at Jaipur) in Jahida Salma v State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2022) a single judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said, "The Coordinate Bench at Jaipur in the case of Jahida Salma has dealt with the controversy in detail and has come to the conclusion that the educational qualification of 'Adeeb' is equivalent to Secondary Examination on the basis of Division Bench's judgments rendered in the case of Altaf Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Miss. Firdos Tarannum & Anr".

Accused Lying Behind Bars Due To Baseless Allegations By Co-Accused, No Iota Of Evidence: Rajasthan HC Releases Man Booked Under NDPS Act

Title: Mukesh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 222

Rajasthan High Court ruled that simply mentioning in the charge sheet that the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was made out against an individual was not sufficient to keep that person behind bars until any material was attached to the charge sheet to show the involvement or participation of the individual.

The Court held that in the absence of even a single piece of evidence, the applicant could not be kept behind bars only based on the assertion of the police officer to the effect of him being guilty when, strangely, he had not been named anywhere by the principal accused other than in his statement before the police.

S.420 IPC | Selling Property To Others Upon Suspicion Of Future Losses Cannot Save Such Assets, Can't Remain Rich "While Ruining Others": Rajasthan HC

Title: Kamla Devi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 223

Rajasthan High Court, while hearing an anticipatory bail application, observed that if a person speculates through someone else about incurring potential losses in future, and in consequence to that speculation disposes of his immovable property to near relative(s), then such properties cannot be saved later and the seller shall be responsible for the consequences since he cannot be allowed to remain rich while ruining others.

“No person can be allowed to become unjust rich and thrive upon the goodwill and reputation of others which is got established over a period of years. If a person has legally speculated through someone else, then he and his properties are responsible for the consequences and later he cannot save his properties and remained rich at the cost of others and by ruining them.”

Sudden Fight, No Premeditation': Rajasthan High Court Alters Husband's Murder Conviction For Throttling Pregnant Wife To Culpable Homicide

Title: Amar Chand v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 224

Rajasthan High Court ordered the release of a man who was serving life imprisonment for last 10 years, after being convicted for murdering his pregnant wife.

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman, while hearing the appeal of the convict, altered the charge of the convict from murder to culpable homicide and reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to period of 10 years already undergone in prison by him.

Road Accident | No Compensation For “Future Prospects” In Case Of Child's Death: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

Title: United India Insurance Company Limited v Ramesh Chandra & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 225

Rajasthan High Court reiterated that in case of death of a child in a motor vehicles accident, the compensation cannot be awarded for such death under the head of “future prospects”.

The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati relied upon Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. in which the Supreme Court had rejected the argument of increasing the compensation awarded to the concerned parties in relation to death of their child by granting further compensation under the separate head of “future prospects” since it was opined that the head could not be used as far as children were concerned.

Ordinary Tiff Between Parties No Evidence Of Motive To Kill: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Murder Accused

Title: Dudaram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 226

Rajasthan High Court ruled that mere existence of some kind of tiff between the accused and the deceased could not be taken as evidence of accused's motive to kill the deceased. It thus granted bail to a murder accused who was behind bars since 2021, only on the basis of circumstantial evidences put forth by the prosecution.

The prosecution had put forth three main circumstantial evidences against the accused out of which one of the main arguments was, there were hostile relations between the parties.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali highlighted,

"Simply because of some ordinary kind of tiff cannot be taken as an evidence of motive to kill the deceased...Serious doubt seems to be a reason behind arrest of the petitioners in the alleged crime, however, it is well nigh settled that suspicion, however, it may grave, cannot be a substitute or legal proof."

Right To Life Must Be Protected Regardless Of Validity Of Marriage: Rajasthan HC Grants Protection To Couple Of Non-Marriageable Age

Title: Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 227

Rajasthan High Court ruled that the supremacy of fundamental rights seeking protection of life and liberty irrespective of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga directed the police to grant protection to a major couple, not of marriageable age, facing threats from family and held that regardless of whether a citizen was a minor or a major, it was the constitutional obligation of the State to treat right to human life on a much higher pedestal.

[Rule 76 Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules] NOC Not Needed By Beneficiary Of Will To Mutate Lease In Their Name: High Court

Title: Jagdish Choudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 228

Rajasthan high Court ruled that Rule 76 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (“the Rules”) applies only when the lease holder dies intestate, without any will. It was opined that Rule 76 operated in a situation where the lease holder died without any will. In case of a will, the property transmitted to the beneficiary as per law and in such a case, the beneficiary of the mining lease was not required to submit an NOC to mutate the lease in his/her name.

“When a person executes a will, the property transmits to the beneficiary by operation of law. And when the beneficiary claims mutation in his/ her name on the basis of will, requirement of 'NOC' does not arise. This Court is firmly of the view that NOC or affidavit or consent of the petitioner is not required, for the purpose of mutating the land in the name of beneficiary of the will.”

Rajasthan High Court Asks Police To Consider Protection Plea By Already Married Live-In Partners

Title: Maya & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 229

Rajasthan High Court directed the local Police to consider providing necessary protection to a man and woman living in a live-in relationship outside their respective wedlocks.

The bench referred to Kanti and another Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2023) where while dealing with similar facts as a puisne Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Monga had ruled that the key issue was not the legality of petitioners' relationship but whether they were entitled to protection in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was ruled that even though the relationship of the couple was prima facie adulterous in nature, in a nation governed by Rule of Law, fundamental right under Article 21 stood on a much higher pedestal and had to be protected irrespective of the legitimacy of relationship between the parties.

“Marks Deducted As Per Instructions”: Rajasthan HC Denies Relief To NEET Candidate Who Filled Two Answers For Same Question

Title: Neha Kumar Jogi v the Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 230

Rajasthan High Court rejected the petition of a NEET candidate seeking an increase in marks and consequent revision in rank, alleging unjust and arbitrary deduction of marks despite marking the correct answer in the OMR Sheet.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain highlighted that firstly, the student had raised the objection after the termination of the window for raising such objections set by the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) and secondly, she had marked two answers for the concerned question which was against the explicit instructions given for filling the OMR Sheet.

No Sweeping Direction Can Be Passed To Decide A Particular Case On Priority, Interferes With Priorities Of Other Pending Matters: Rajasthan HC

Title: Yatendra Kumar Sharma v Smt. Swati Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 231

Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition seeking directions to the District Court for expeditious decision on a divorce petition within a time bound period of six months.

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that in the absence of any statistics on pending or disposal of cases before the concerned court, no sweeping directions could be passed to decide a case on priority. The Court opined that such an order interfered with the cause list of the court and also the corresponding priorities of the other pending matters.

No Absolute Estoppel From Raising Dispute Even If 'No-Claim' Or 'Discharge Certificate' Was Signed: Rajasthan High Court

Title: M/s Shakti Foundation v the Chairman, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 232

Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that there cannot be an absolute rule of estoppel wherein one is not allowed to raise a dispute even after he/she had signed a no claim or discharge certificate, and each case should be looked into on its own facts and circumstances.

“This Court does not find any strong ground to hold that the applicant is estopped to raise the dispute, merely on the basis of receiving the balance amount refunded by RIICO. Therefore, such contention raised by and on behalf of respondents is hereby rejected.”