Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 136Writ Petition Against Charge-Sheet Not Maintainable Unless Issued By Authority Not Competent To Initiate Disciplinary Action: Rajasthan HCCase Title: Laxman Singh Gurjar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & 2 Ors.Case Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 1The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 136
Case Title: Laxman Singh Gurjar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & 2 Ors.
Case 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.
Case Title: G.K v. State of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary & Ors.
Case 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.
Case Title: G R Infraprojects Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Case Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 3
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once the deduction claim for education cess is withdrawn, the assessee is immune from the imposition of a penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act.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 petitioner-company was asked to show cause why its claim for deduction of education cess of Rs. 12,85,58,982 be disallowed and be added back to its income for the relevant financial year and penalty proceedings be initiated under Section 270-A. In response to the notice, the petitioner company withdrew its claim for deduction of the education cess and accepted the proposed variation.
The court held that the application filed by the petitioner-company under Section 270AA seeking immunity from imposition of penalty has not been decided by the Assessing Officer within the prescribed time as per Section 270AA(4), and the action of the Assessing Officer in imposing the penalty against the petitioner-company is liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited Versus Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 4
The Rajasthan High Court has 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).
Case Title: State Of Rajasthan, Through Government Advocate v. Narendra Meghwal & Ors.
Case 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, 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
Case Title: X v. State of Rajasthan Through P.P & Ors.
Case 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. Reliance was also placed on Supriyo@ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v Union of India, to prove the legal position that a transgender man has the right to marry a cisgender woman under the laws governing marriage in the country, including personal laws.
S.138 NI Act | Primary Concern Is Recovery Of Money, Conviction Of Accused Serves Little Purpose: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Lakhani Builders Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP & Anr.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 7
Rajasthan High Court iterated 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.
Case Title: Chain Singh Gehlot v. Sushila Parihar
Case 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 Court further noted that it is obligatory upon the courts to weigh the comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant and the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur upon weighing the said hardship has found landlord's needs of the premises as bonafide while considering the fact that the respondent is a widow lady having unmarried daughter as well as the financial hardships and considering the location of the shop in dispute has allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent while setting aside the decision and certificate passed by the Rent Tribunal.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 9
The Rajasthan High Court registered a suo moto PIL concerning the blockage of the road and installation of barricades on the advent of “Pran Pratishtha Mahotsava.”
The Court noted that some people had installed barricades/barriers and blocked the entire way leading towards the Jhalamand Circle and High Court, which resulted in a chaotic situation and a complete blockade on the road. It was further observed by the Court that on account of such blockage, many lawyers, High Court staff, and even Judges found it difficult nay impossible to reach Court on time.
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.
Case Title: Victim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Case 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.
'Hostile Discrimination': Rajasthan HC Quashes Municipal Chairperson's Suspension Order Upon Noting Similar Charges Against SDO & EO Were Dropped
Case Title: Satish Kumar Duhariya S/o Late Shri Moolchand v. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Local Self Government Department & Anr.
Case 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.
Case Title: Ajeet Singh & Ors. v. Smt. Kailash Kanwar & Ors and connected matters
Case 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.
Case Title: Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. v. Dr. Harish Agrawal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 13
The Rajasthan High Court 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.”
Case Title: Om Prakash Solanki v. Special Secretary His Excellency Governor Of The State of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors.
Case 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.
Before the High Court, the petitioner vehemently argued that there are no provisions for the appointment to the office of Deputy Chief Minister in the constitution. Taking an oath as the Deputy Chief Minister in itself is unconstitutional.
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.
Case Title: Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital v. The Union of India & Ors.& Connected Matters
Case 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.
Case Title: Asha Ram @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 16
Recently, 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.
“Irrespective of whether such provisions is unconstitutional or not, the law as it stands today, bars consideration of an application of a prisoner, who is undergoing jail sentence in a jail of Rajasthan, having convicted by a Court of other State. Thus, there is a clear prohibition under the law. Therefore, the prayer to read down Rule 1(3) of the new Parole Rules of 2021…. cannot be accepted”, the court said.
Rajasthan High Court Quashes POCSO Case On Being Informed Of Victim's Marriage With Accused
Case Title: Avdhesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 17
Recently, 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.
Case Title: Harish Kumar v. Usha Devi & Ors
Case 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.
Case Title: Gyan Bahadur Chhetri & Anr v. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence & Ors
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 19
Rajasthan High Court recently 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.
The court observed that Section 20 of the Army Act, 1950 r/w Rule 17 of the Army Rules, 1954 is available to the concerned authorities to issue a show cause notice against erring personnel, before the termination of services, even though such official may have already been subjected to court-martial proceedings.
Widowed Daughter-In Law Also Part Of Family, Can Seek Compassionate Appointment Under 1996 Rules: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Smt. Durga Devi Mairda v. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 20
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. The Court directed the respondent department to grant compassionate appointment to the widowed daughter-in-law, Durga Devi, within three months.
Case Title: Smt. Vandana W/o Bajrang Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health & Ors.
Case 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.
Electricity Dept Played Pivotal Role In Fight Against Covid: Rajasthan High Court Grants 70 Lakhs Ex-Gratia Payment To Deceased Employee's Wife
Case Title: Sugan Prajapat W/o Late Shri Megha Ram Prajapat v. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing Director & Anr.
Case 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.
Case Title: Peer Mohamad & Ors since deceased now being represented through legal representatives v. The State of Rajasthan, through Tehsildar Phagi & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 23
Rajasthan High Court 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.
Case Title: Jitendra Meena v State of Rajasthan
Case 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.
Case Title: Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, (IASE) v. Union Of India & Ors. a/w Connected Matters
Case 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
Case Title: Mubarak @ Salman v. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 26
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.
Case Title: Ram Kripal Meena v. Director Of Enforcement
Case 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.
Case Title: Municipal Corporation, Bikaner & Anr. v. Dhanna Ram & Ors.
Case 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 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.
Case Title: Nisha Gaur & Ors. v. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr & Connected Matters
Case 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.
Lawyers Required To Maintain Restraint, Shouldn't Cast Aspersions On Judicial Officers When Judicial Orders Are Challenged: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Babulal S/o Gebaji v. Shri Mahaveer Jain Swetamber Pedhi(Trust)
Case 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.
Case Title: Dharmendra Choudhary v. The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary- Home Department & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 31
Rajasthan High Court has recently 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.
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.
Case Title: Mahaveer Jain v. Income Tax Officer
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 32
Rajasthan High Court recently 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.
Case Title: Shiv Ratan v. State of Rajasthan Through Colonisation Officers & Ors
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 33
Recently, 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.
Case Title: Nand Lal Raigar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 34
The Rajasthan High Court 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.
Case Title: Nawal Kishore & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 35
Rajasthan High Court recently 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.
Case Title: Sanjay Sukhwal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case 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.
Case Title: Dr. Mahendra Singh Jakhar & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. and Connected Matters
Case 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.
Case Title: Moti Ram V. State of Rajasthan, Home Department & Ors
Case 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.
Have No Superintendence Over NCDRC Which Is Situated In Delhi: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Rajeev Chaturvedi v. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority
Case 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).
Previously, Jaipur Development Authority had preferred an appeal against the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's (Jaipur) award before NCDRC. This appeal was rejected by the Commission on 14.06.2022 for non-appearance of the counsel for JDA. An application to recall the said order was also dismissed by NCDRC on 13.04.2023.
Case Title: Rajesh Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan Through PP
Case 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.
Case Title: Sangeeta Joshi v. The Rajasthan High Court At Jodhpur & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 41
The 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. 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'.
Case Title: Rajendra Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing & Ors.
Case 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, 1/4th 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.
Case Title: Smt. Raj Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors and Smt Sua Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case 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'.
Case Title: Bhanwar Lal Bhadu v. Ved Prakash & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 44
Noting that Section 73 of the Evidence Act was 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.
Case Title: Ashutosh Garg v. Union of India
Case 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.
Case Title: The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Home Department, Jaipur & Ors v. Aashish Kumar S/o Kalu Ram and Connected Matters
Case 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 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.
Case Title: Dungar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case 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.
Case Title: Chetram v. State of Rajasthan through PP
Case 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 specifically directed ACB to inquire about the role of the Chairman of Alwar Diary, Bannaram Meena, on whose behalf the accused public servant was 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.
Case 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.
Case Title: Smt. Hemika & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case 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.
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar Saini v. State of Rajasthan Through PP
Case 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.
Case Title: Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/s Trunks and Roots & Ors.
Case 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.
Case Title: Jagdish Chandra Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan, through Dy. Secretary to the Government (I) & Ors.
Case 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.
Case Title: Prema Ram Patel & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. & Connected Matters
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 54
The Rajasthan High Court 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.
Case Title: Rohit Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case 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.
Case Title: Sunil v. State of Rajasthan and Connected Matters
Case 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.
Case Title: Babu Shekh & Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case 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, correctly took cognizance against the remaining accused under Section 193 Cr.P.C after the committal of the case by the Magistrate.
Case Title: Man Singh S/o Samantaram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Case 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
Case Title: Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case 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, 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.
Case Title: Manoj Paliwal & Anr v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case 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.
Case Title: Laxman Singh @ Bunty & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case 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.
Magistrate's Power U/S 256 CrPC To Be Used Sparingly, Not For 'Statistical Purposes Of Removing Docket From Rack': Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: K. K. Construction v. Shri Bhagwan Singh Poswal, Chairman Shri Vinayak Mission Medical and Education Society Jaipur & Ors.
Case 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.
Case Title: Om Prakash S/o Shri Nath Mal Ji v.State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 63
Rajasthan High Court recently 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.
Case Title: Anil Pareek v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 64
A division bench of the Rajasthan High Court 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).
Case Title: DS & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor & Anr. & Connected Matters
Case 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.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax Versus Jain Poles Industries
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 66
The Rajasthan High Court, 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 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.
Case 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.
Case Title: Chandigarh Manav Vikas Trust v Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case 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 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.”
Case title: Asharam vs. State of Rajasthan
Case 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.
Case Title: Akha Ram and Others vs National Highway Authority Of India and Others
Case 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.
Addressing the issue of arbitration, the High Court pointed out that the Arbitration Act only allows for a reference to a Civil Court in specific circumstances outlined in Section 3H(4). It highlighted that the Arbitration Act does not provide for other contingencies for referring disputes to a Civil Court.
Case Title: Partap Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 71
Rajasthan High Court recently 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.
Case Title: Pawan Meena v. State of Rajasthan
Case 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.
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.
Case Title: Phoolmati v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case 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 ordered State and Central Governments to jointly pay the woman Rs 4 lakhs as compensation.
A single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand 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
Case Title: Harshit Dudawat v. The Hon'ble High Court Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar General & Ors.
Case 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.
Case Title: Rais Khan v Add. Commissioner
Case 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 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.
Case title - Harshit Dudawat vs. Hon'ble High Court Of Rajasthan and others
Case 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.
Case title - Y and others vs State Of Rajasthan and others
Case 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.
Case Title: Mahesh Chandra Soni vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case 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”) held that the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 (“Pension Rules”) state that pension and gratuity are the amounts credited to the Petitioner on the basis of services rendered by him. Further, the retirement benefits accruing under the Pension Rules cannot be withheld because of any proceedings which do not relate to the official duties, particularly in the matters like family disputes etc.
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 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.
Case Title: Nand Kishore Meena vs General Manager, Disciplinary Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce
Case 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 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.
Case Title: Shiv Kumar Khandelwal vs State of Rajasthan & Ors
Case 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 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.
The court further observed that the charge-sheet issued against the Petitioner was for the offence of wilful absence which attracts the punishment of removal from service. The court however held that:
“Since the punishment imposed was less severe than the proposed punishment of removal of service, it cannot be set aside merely because it is not explicitly spelt out in the rules, especially considering that the charge of wilful absence stands established against the present petitioner”
Case Title: Dr. Mukesh Sharma vs State of Rajasthan
Case 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 held that employees have a legitimate expectation of getting same benefits which were extended to an employee which is similarly situated. The Court remarked,
“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
Case Title: Dr. Shiv Kumar vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case 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 held that lien of a government servant only ceases to exist when he/she is appointed on another post substantively or absorbed permanently.
The court observed that it was not contended by the Medical Department that the lien of the Petitioner was ever suspended, terminated or transferred. Furthermore, the Petitioner was not substantially absorbed on any other post. Thus, it could not be said that the lien of the Petitioner came to an end after a period of one year. Thus, the court observed that the Petitioner was entitled to join back the duty and also to continue in service. Furthermore, the Petitioner was entitled for all service and retiral benefits as if he was allowed to join after returning from foreign assignment in 2009.
Case Title: Udai Singh vs Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Dholpur & Ors
Case 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 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 court observed that the Petitioner was terminated from service in 1991. However, the statement of claim was filed by the Petitioner in 2016 after 25 years of delay.
The court further observed that
“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”
Case Title: Hari Shankar Sharma & Ors. vs UOI & Ors
Case 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 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 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
Case Title: Sapna v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case 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.
Case title - Lovepreet Singh and Another vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1510/2024]
Case 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 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.
Case Title: Vimlesh Baregama v. Manglam Cement Ltd, S.B. Arbitration Application No. 23 of 2021
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 87
The High Court of Rajasthan, 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.
Case Title: The Income Tax Officer Versus Rajendra Prasad Vaish
Case 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 has 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.
Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging GST Demand On Exhibition Services
Case Title: M/s. Savio Jewellery Versus Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax
Case 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.
Case Title: Simara Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case 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 Court further observed, “Simultaneously, Courts should not hesitate in quashing the criminal proceedings which are essentially arising out of civil or commercial disputes between the two parties as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Paramjeet Batra (supra) and Dalip Kaur (supra). Police stations can/should not be allowed to work as recovery agent or to make pressure upon one party of the litigation in the garb of criminal investigation to settle the civil disputes”.
Crane Services To Transport Department Does Not Constitute Sale: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v M/s Agarwal Carriers And Lifters
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 91
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench 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 has 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.
Case Title: Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.). and anr vs Kalu Ram Sharma
Case 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
Case Title: M/s. Lotus Organic Care and Anr vs M/s. Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd.
Case 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.
Case Title: Dharamveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Case 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.
The High Court clarified that petitioner did acts being posted as SHO of Police Station, he should not be deprived from the protection of law as available to a public servant against his criminal prosecution by virtue of Section 197 CrPC.
The underlying object of Section 197 CrPC is to enable the authorities to scrutinise the allegations made against a “public servant” to shield him/her against “frivolous”, “vexatious” or “false” prosecution initiated with the main object of causing embarrassment and harassment to the said official.
Case Title: Suo Moto vs. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority
Case 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
Case Title: State Of Rajasthan vs. Indira Kumari
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 96
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.