Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 184 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 232NOMINAL INDEXM/S Ak Jilshan v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 184Manju Garg v State of Rajasthan 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 185Gopal Mehra & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 186Shakti Gurjar v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 187M/S Sant International Jewellers v the State of Rajasthan &...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 184 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 232
NOMINAL INDEX
M/S Ak Jilshan v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
Manju Garg v State of Rajasthan 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
Gopal Mehra & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
Shakti Gurjar v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
M/S Sant International Jewellers v the State of Rajasthan & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
Suman Meena & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
Kulddeep v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
Payal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. and batch petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
Sajwar Khan v Gaje Singh 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
Kailash Tolani v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
Shree Shakti Minerals Versus The Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
Dilip Kumar v Dharampal Choudhary & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
Rajeev Sidana & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
Kapil Kumar Labana & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 197
Sanjib v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
Rajesh Bishnoi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 199
Balveer v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
Mahesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
Khiya Ram Jat & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
Madan Lal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 203
Shankar Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 204
Ranveer Kumar v Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
Bhopal Singh v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 206
Shri Sawai College of Pharmacy & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
Medipulse Hospital v Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
Vikram Manshani v Praveen Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
Mukesh Kumar v Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 210
Jubair Bhati v Rajasthan High Court & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
Abhishek & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
Smt. Kherunisa v Lrs of Jai Shiv Singh & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
PCIT Versus Smt. Sonal Jain 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
M/S Larsen and Tourbo v Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Project & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. v Gyan Chand 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 216
Shri Ramniwas Dham Trust v Nirmla Choudhary & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 217
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Smt. Madni Bai & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 218
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v Smt. Rajbala & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
Ashok Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 220
Gomi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
Mukesh v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
Kamla Devi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
Amar Chand v State 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 224
United India Insurance Company Limited v Ramesh Chandra & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 225
Dudaram v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 226
Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 227
Jagdish Choudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 228
Maya & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 229
Neha Kumar Jogi v the Union of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 230
Yatendra Kumar Sharma v Smt. Swati Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 231
M/s Shakti Foundation v the Chairman, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 232
Orders/Judgments of the Month
Title: M/S Ak Jilshan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal by the appellant challenging an order of the Transport Department suspending his vehicle's registration without affording any opportunity for a hearing.
It was held that the order was made by the Transport Department in excess of its lawfully prescribed authority and thus was void ab initio illegal.
The Court observed that when there was an allegation of not providing any opportunity for hearing, it was not sufficient to state that the notice was issued, but some proof of service of notice in the manner prescribed by law needed to be placed on record. The Court held that no such evidence was placed on record from the side of the respondent department.
Title: Manju Garg v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
The Rajasthan High Court took serious note against the increasing issue of teacher absenteeism, and ineligible and unqualified proxy teachers in government schools of Rajasthan, wherein government employed teachers illegally appoint unemployed youths who may not even have the basis qualifications to teach, to work in their place, "playing with the future and career of the students at large".
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the Rajasthan government to launch a campaign of “Zero Tolerance Policy of Proxy Teachers” with a motto “Attendance of teachers in school is must and proxy teachers are not acceptable in any way” and have issued interim directions to be followed for implementation of the policy and campaign.
Title: Gopal Mehra & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
Considering the actions of the trial court as a case of 'disobedience and judicial indiscipline' for ignoring the directions issued by a single bench of the Rajasthan High Court, the Court directed the matter to be placed before the same coordinate bench for taking action against the presiding officer of the concerned trial court.
The Court held that the trial court not only ignored that order passed by the coordinate bench, but also deliberately passed an unreasoned order, erroneously framing charges under Section 307 when no such charge was made out from any angle. Hence, the Court set aside the order of the trial court and discharged the accused from the charges under Section 307. The Court ruled this to be a case of disobedience and judicial indiscipline.
Title: Shakti Gurjar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the bail application of an accused booked under the NDPS Act and observed that violation of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act (the “Act”) could not be considered by the Court at the stage of granting bail. These questions can only be answered at the trial stage in light of all the evidence put forth. It said:
“Youth forms the basic unit of the society. The harmony of the society depends on its younger members. When the members of society become drug abusers then it disturbs the entire societal harmony. Drugs and crime cannot be considered separately, in isolation from each other, especially if they emerge from a common set of circumstances…The addicts are, therefore, an added burden to the law-abiding population.”
Title: M/S Sant International Jewellers v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea against an order of the State Government by which an application of the petitioner for allotment of a plot in the Special Economic Zone (“SEZ”) to set up a Gems and Jewelry industry was rejected.
A bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the scope of court interference in tender matters was very limited since it was not a case of discrimination or irrationality. It was stated that since all the applications were rejected uniformly to re-advertise the plots on revised rates, it would not be plausible to interfere with the decision.
Title: Suman Meena & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
Rajasthan High Court issued a SOP, taking note of multiplicity of pleas filed by major couples apprehending threats of extra-legal harassment and violence at the hands of their families or other social actors or groups and thus seeking police protection.
The Court highlighted that such threats are a direct attack on the constitutional rights of the major couples, especially under Articles 14 and 21. The Court further stressed upon the institutional role of police in safeguarding the constitutional rights of such couples. In this regard, the Court issued directions to be put in place by the State Government to strengthen the mechanism that could protect not only such couples but any other individual who might be facing extra-legal threats to their lives.
Title: Kulddeep v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
Rajasthan High Court rejected the bail application of one of the many accused in a murder case, who was neither named in the FIR nor had any allegations levelled against him.
The Court observed that even though the applicant had not actively taken part in actually and physically attacking the victim, by being involved in other manner in the crime, the gravity of his role did not decrease.
“In view of the enormous prima facie material placed on record in respect of the applicant, the allegations leveled against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation in the instant case, the role attributed to the petitioner and the case set up against petitioner in its entirety, the petitioner is not found entitled to be released on bail.”
Title: Payal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. and batch petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to various sanitation workers whose services were terminated as their experience letter was not certified by the competent authority mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the post.
A single judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in its August 2 order held that since such a requirement was not prescribed by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employee Service) Rules, 2012 the condition mentioned in the advertisement/notification was foreign to the Rules.
Title: Sajwar Khan v Gaje Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
Noting the "negligent conduct" of a man in delaying the trial of a recovery suit by almost 19 years, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed his plea for setting aside an ex-parte decree which was passed due to his non-appearance in the suit.
A single judge bench of Justice Nupur Bhati observed, "Thus, upon perusal of the record, and the findings of the learned Trial Court, it is clear that the conduct of the defendant has been negligent and causing delay and the entire factual incident at least makes it clear that he has been delaying the case repeatedly and the original suit has been delayed for almost 19 years".
Title: Kailash Tolani v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
The Rajasthan High Court held that in case unfair or improper investigation of an FIR, the aggrieved person can seek recourse by approaching a superior police officer as per Section 36 CrPC.
Single bench of Justice Arun Monga rejected a petition filed directly before it, alleging slow and unfair probe. It held,
"The investigation is still at a very nascent stage, and the petition appears to have been filed prematurely without awaiting its outcome. Even otherwise, in my opinion, the petitioner ought to have availed of other available legal remedies for redressal of his grievance before approaching this Court."
Appeal To Be Decided On Merits Irrespective Of Some Laches Or Delay On Part Of Assessee: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Shree Shakti Minerals Versus The Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
The Rajasthan High Court held that a right to appeal as provided under the statute must be decided on merits irrespective of some laches or delay on the part of the assessee.
The bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that the statutory provisions of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act would bind the statutory authority, which cannot condone the delay except the circumstances envisaged under the CGST Act, but limitations are not applied in a writ proceeding.
Title: Dilip Kumar v Dharampal Choudhary & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati at the Rajasthan High Court accepted an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator and observed that the issue of non-arbitrability of a dispute under an arbitration agreement falls under the domain of the arbitral tribunal in the first instance and the courts have the power to only “second look” after passing of the arbitral award. The Court also opined that the question regarding the claim being barred by res judicata does not arise for consideration in proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, and hence, it also needs to be dealt with by the arbitral tribunal only.
Title: Rajeev Sidana & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed with the prayer to direct the Government to grant 30% bonus marks for appointment on the post of Medical Officer (Dental), since such bonus marking was done by the Government for various other posts.
The Court held that prescribing eligibility conditions including bonus marking was purely a policy decision falling within the domain of the State Government that cannot be interfered with unless it was demonstrably capricious and arbitrary. It was observed that,
“If the State Government has chosen not to provide any bonus marks for the services rendered by persons like petitioners on the post of Medical Officer (Dental), then the same cannot be held to be discriminatory simply on the ground that in other recruitment processes, the State Government generally provides for grant of bonus marks. It is the policy decision of the State Government to grant or not to grant the bonus marks in a particular recruitment and the same cannot be interfered with unless it is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary.”
Title: Kapil Kumar Labana & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 197
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the graduates of Tirupati College of Nursing (“College”) who were denied registration by the Rajasthan Nursing Council (“RNC”) on account of the affiliation of their college, the Tirupati College of Nursing being canceled by the RNC for want of requisite NOC from the State Government.
The Court directed that the students had taken admission in the College when its affiliation was valid which came to be cancelled only after these students had completed their course.
Title: Sanjib v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
The Rajasthan High Court laid down rules for the release of vehicles that have been seized under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act”).
The Court held that if confiscation proceedings get initiated under the Act, then the vehicle(s) in question can be released only on payment of the penalty amount and the compounding fees.
However, if no such proceedings have begun and only an appeal has been filed against the penalty/compounding order passed by the mining officer, then the petitioner shall be granted liberty to approach the competent court to get the vehicle released which can be allowed on the petitioner furnishing a bond or a bank guarantee for an amount equaling to the current value of the impounded vehicle.
Title: Rajesh Bishnoi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 199
The Rajasthan High Court while hearing the custody case of a 6-year-old was gifted flowers and a hand-crafted pen stand by the child as a symbol of appreciation for the mediation sessions held with him. While acknowledging the gesture of the boy, a division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman said:
“This Court acknowledges and appreciates the creativity and positivity of the child and also his sweet gesture and thank him for the wonderful gifts, which he has brought for us. At the end, the child also though in a soft tone, expressed his thanks to the Court. We shall preserve the precious gifts made of craft paper in our Chambers as a 'Symbol of Strength of Mediation Law'.”
Non-Compliance With CrPC, NDPS Act Cannot Be Argued At Stage Of Bail In International Drug Smuggling Cases: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Balveer v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to an individual booked under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) for allegedly being involved in an attempt to smuggle drugs from Pakistan.
The Court held that non-compliance with provisions under the NDPS Act or CrPC cannot be argued at the stage of bail in a case of international smuggling of contraband.
"On perusal of record, it is prima facie revealed that issues sought to be argued by the petitioner regarding alleged non-compliance of various provisions of NDPS Act and Cr.P.C. cannot be countenanced at this stage in such a case of international smuggling of contraband drug."
Title: Mahesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
Rajasthan High Court affirmed that a government employee who has been appointed by a regular mode of selection, and is on probation, cannot be treated as a temporary government employee whose services can be terminated by giving one month notice under Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 (“the Rules”) which is meant for temporary employees.
Title: Khiya Ram Jat & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
The Rajasthan High Court took up a peculiar case concerning drug smuggling wherein the Narcotics Control Bureau (“NCB”) and the Rajasthan State Police were accusing each other's officials of being involved with an accused in the case and had filed counter cases against one another.
Due to the complexity of the matter, Justice Arun Monga directed the investigation to be transferred to a neutral and independent third party i.e. the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”), Jodhpur.
“Factual narrative in the case herein is rather glaring. It appears that two Investigative Agencies are at loggerheads, embroiled in a direct conflict, each striving to attribute criminal culpability concerning the contraband in question i.e. 5 kg of opium. After deliberating the entire matter and on perusal of case file, a consensus has been arrived at by all present, that, to ensure a neutral, independent, and fair investigation, it is considered rather expedient to transfer the entire matter to a third neutral agency i.e. the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Jodhpur.”
Title: Madan Lal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 203
Rajasthan High Court modified a trial court order issuing non-bailable warrants against an individual accused in a dowry complaint on their failure to appear before the court, irrespective of the fact that a negative final report was filed by the investigation officer in the case.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that personal liberty of a citizen could not be taken so lightly as to mechanically pass orders to arrest him, merely for production before the court unless there was a deliberate attempt to evade court process.
Title: Shankar Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 204
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition for 15 days of parole filed by a father convicted of raping his daughter. The convict had absconded during his first parole which was granted in 2018 and his father had denied giving any undertaking for his conduct during his application for second parole in 2022.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that a balance needed to be achieved between the legislative intent of POCSO, that there should be minimal contact between the convict and the victim, and the statutory rights of the convict. Accordingly, it was directed that while being out on parole, the petitioner shall reside at a place that is away from the residence of the victim and shall not visit her.
Title: Ranveer Kumar v Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to an aspirant for a government job 9 years after his candidature was rejected, despite being meritorious, on the grounds of a pending criminal case against him.
The Court observed that firstly, denying government employment merely on the grounds of a pending criminal case was illegal, arbitrary and unjust because as per criminal jurisprudence, an accused was considered innocent until proven guilty. Secondly, the Court also highlighted that the offences for which the petitioner was charged were petty, involving no moral turpitude.
Title: Bhopal Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 206
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a person wrongly arrayed in an NDPS case by the police, without conducting any investigation regarding his identity, solely relying upon the statement of the co-accused.
The Court observed that all material disclosed that the petitioner was not the person appearing in the statements of the co-accused but some other person having a different name. The Court held that in the event of lack of any direct material proving that the petitioner was the same person as mentioned by the co-accused, he could not be arrayed as an accused merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused.
Title: Shri Sawai College of Pharmacy & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to 60 students who had taken admission in Shri Sawai College of Pharmacy (“College”) and had spent two years in learning a course, however declaration of their results was put on hold by the examining authority i.e. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (“University”) since the approval of the College by the Pharmacy Council of India (“Council”) was under dispute.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that even though granting of admission to these students by the College was irregular, however, dismissing the petition would impact the future of these 60 students who had bona-fidely taken admission in the College and had spent two years assuming that the College was entitled to admit them.
Title: Medipulse Hospital v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the Medipulse Hospital (“the Hospital”) which was de-empanelled from the Central Government Health Scheme (“CGHS/Scheme”) for five years by the Government of India pursuant to a complaint against the Hospital by a retired central government employee alleging deficient services by the Hospital.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that there was no statutory provision or stipulation for de-empaneling a Hospital that too for five years from the CGHS that could be seen as granting power to the Additional Director, CGHS to de-empanel a hospital from the scheme.
Title: Vikram Manshani v Praveen Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
Rajasthan High Court held that no special leave is required to file an appeal under Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), against an acquittal order wherein the complainant in the case is the victim himself.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar observed that Section 413 of BNSS corresponded to Section 372, CrPC where the proviso laid down the right of a victim to appeal against an order of acquittal, or an order convicting the accused for a lesser offence, or imposing inadequate compensation.
Title: Mukesh Kumar v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 210
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a government employee who was dismissed from his job without a hearing 15 years ago, by directing the government to refer his industrial dispute to the labour court.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Government of India (“respondent”) where the respondent had refused to make reference for settlement of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. It was held that,
“The function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function. It, therefore, cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis. The question whether the person raising the dispute was a workman or not, cannot be decided by the Government, in exercise of its administrative function under Section 10(1) of the Act. This dispute is required to be adjudicated by the competent Labour Court after its reference.”
Title: Jubair Bhati v Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
The Rajasthan High Court laid down that justice earned on merits of the case by litigants shall not be adversely affected in cases pending for a long time due to prolonged adjudication with no interim order operating.
In doing so, the high court observed that the rights of a person needs to be protected against its dilution due to such delay.
A division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman opined that the "majesty of Rule of Law" requires that a person who has approached the Court in time and without any delay, who has laid threadbare all his details without any failure and remains under the umbrella of the adjudication for a long time, cannot be denied the benefit due to time lapse during which the matter remained pending.
Title: Abhishek & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
While hearing a murder case involving the bajri (sand) mafia the Rajasthan High Court transferred the matter to CBI after observing that the investigation conducted by the State Police and CID had been so "unfair, tainted and incomplete" that it had "pricked the judicial conscience" of the Court.
The High Court further said that in a sensitive matter such as this one where offences against marginalised communities is alleged to have been committed, the investigation authorities had "miserably failed in their task to uphold the tenets of a fair investigation" as stipulated by the Cr.P.C. and the SC/ST Act wherein despite knowledge of a cognizable offense, no timely FIR was registered, log-book was not maintained and the roznamcha was not prepared.
Title: Smt. Kherunisa v Lrs of Jai Shiv Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
Rajasthan High Court ruled that sisters cannot be considered legal representatives of a deceased individual especially where the first class heirs including the wife, son and daughter of the deceased were surviving.
“In the present matter, essentially the estate of the plaintiff would be represented by his first class heirs which undisputedly would be his wife, son and daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out to any provision of law which prescribes for the sisters to be the legal representatives even where the first class heirs of a deceased plaintiff are surviving.”
Title: PCIT Versus Smt. Sonal Jain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed the income tax reassessment and held that the Income Tax Department had not done any investigation or held an inquiry. There was no other material except the value determined by the A.O.
The bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Ashutosh Kumar has observed that the additions were made solely based on the order passed by the AO determining the value of the goods imported. The order passed by the AO was quashed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Pre-Arb Step(s) Cannot Be Treated As Mandatory If Could Not Be Fructified: Rajasthan High Court
Title: M/S Larsen and Tourbo v Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Project & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal at the Rajasthan High Court opined that where pre-arbitration steps mentioned in the agreement could not be fructified, it could not be held that those were mandatory in nature and in the event of failure of these no arbitration could be initiated. The Court held that it was a well settled principle of law that an arbitration agreement being a commercial one needed to be interpreted in a manner so as to give effect to the intention of the parties of referring a dispute to arbitration, rather than invalidating the same on technicalities.
Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. v Gyan Chand
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 216
The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the doctrine of proportionality in service matters cannot be invoked in relation to an employee whose basis of attaining employment was fraudulent.
It was also held that the High Court's scope of interference with a disciplinary authority's decision on the quantum of penalty in service matters is minimal.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that the doctrine of proportionality could not be invoked to favour an employee who attained employment based on a forged document. The court said that in such cases, no length of tenure could create any sympathy in the minds of the Court to reduce the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Title: Shri Ramniwas Dham Trust v Nirmla Choudhary & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 217
The Rajasthan High Court observed that a power of attorney holder of a trust who is also its manager holds the capacity of a trustee and so can depose as well as lead evidence on behalf of the trust.
The High Court held that it was an admitted fact that the power of attorney holder was also the manager of the trust. The Court referred to the definition of “trustee” and “working trustee” under the Rajasthan Public trust Act, 1959 and observed that the definitions were explicit about the fact that the manager of a trust holds the capacity of a trustee. And in turn the power of attorney holder who was also the manager of the trust, was also holding the capacity of a trustee.
Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Smt. Madni Bai & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 218
The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that a transport vehicle weighing less than 7500 Kgs does not need a separate driving license other than the one issued under Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) for driving a Light Motor Vehicle (“LMV”).
“That there is no requirement to obtain a separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive a transport vehicle of such class without endorsement to that effect…”
Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v Smt. Rajbala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
Rajasthan High Court affirmed that in the case of a private vehicle insured against the “Act only Policy”, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the occupants of the vehicle since they are not considered to be the “third parties” as required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“Act”). The Court said:
“The position of law as it stands at present is that in case of a private vehicle insured against “Act only Policy”, the liability of occupants is not covered as the protection of Chapter-XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is only available against the third party risks and the occupants of a private vehicle are not third parties. And in such cases direction to pay and recover cannot be issued to the insurer.”
Title: Ashok Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 220
Rajasthan High Court ruled that powers to suspend a civil servant under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 shall be used by the competent authority with due caution and vigilance, only after considering its necessity and recording the reasons behind the satisfaction of the same.
The Court held that suspending a civil servant without recording such reasons, only by instructions in circulars, or by word of mouth, or a slip of pen, amounts to a colourable exercise of power.
Qualification Of “Adeeb” Is Equivalent To Class 10th Qualification: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates
Title: Gomi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
While reiterating that the educational qualification termed as "Adeeb" is equivalent to Secondary Examination (10th Class), the Rajasthan High Court directed the appointment of a woman to the post of Health Worker (Female) which had the eligibility criteria of 10th standard qualification.
Referring to the decision of a coordinate bench (at Jaipur) in Jahida Salma v State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2022) a single judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said, "The Coordinate Bench at Jaipur in the case of Jahida Salma has dealt with the controversy in detail and has come to the conclusion that the educational qualification of 'Adeeb' is equivalent to Secondary Examination on the basis of Division Bench's judgments rendered in the case of Altaf Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Miss. Firdos Tarannum & Anr".
Title: Mukesh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
Rajasthan High Court ruled that simply mentioning in the charge sheet that the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was made out against an individual was not sufficient to keep that person behind bars until any material was attached to the charge sheet to show the involvement or participation of the individual.
The Court held that in the absence of even a single piece of evidence, the applicant could not be kept behind bars only based on the assertion of the police officer to the effect of him being guilty when, strangely, he had not been named anywhere by the principal accused other than in his statement before the police.
Title: Kamla Devi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
Rajasthan High Court, while hearing an anticipatory bail application, observed that if a person speculates through someone else about incurring potential losses in future, and in consequence to that speculation disposes of his immovable property to near relative(s), then such properties cannot be saved later and the seller shall be responsible for the consequences since he cannot be allowed to remain rich while ruining others.
“No person can be allowed to become unjust rich and thrive upon the goodwill and reputation of others which is got established over a period of years. If a person has legally speculated through someone else, then he and his properties are responsible for the consequences and later he cannot save his properties and remained rich at the cost of others and by ruining them.”
Title: Amar Chand v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 224
Rajasthan High Court ordered the release of a man who was serving life imprisonment for last 10 years, after being convicted for murdering his pregnant wife.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman, while hearing the appeal of the convict, altered the charge of the convict from murder to culpable homicide and reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to period of 10 years already undergone in prison by him.
Title: United India Insurance Company Limited v Ramesh Chandra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 225
Rajasthan High Court reiterated that in case of death of a child in a motor vehicles accident, the compensation cannot be awarded for such death under the head of “future prospects”.
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati relied upon Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. in which the Supreme Court had rejected the argument of increasing the compensation awarded to the concerned parties in relation to death of their child by granting further compensation under the separate head of “future prospects” since it was opined that the head could not be used as far as children were concerned.
Title: Dudaram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 226
Rajasthan High Court ruled that mere existence of some kind of tiff between the accused and the deceased could not be taken as evidence of accused's motive to kill the deceased. It thus granted bail to a murder accused who was behind bars since 2021, only on the basis of circumstantial evidences put forth by the prosecution.
The prosecution had put forth three main circumstantial evidences against the accused out of which one of the main arguments was, there were hostile relations between the parties.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali highlighted,
"Simply because of some ordinary kind of tiff cannot be taken as an evidence of motive to kill the deceased...Serious doubt seems to be a reason behind arrest of the petitioners in the alleged crime, however, it is well nigh settled that suspicion, however, it may grave, cannot be a substitute or legal proof."
Title: Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 227
Rajasthan High Court ruled that the supremacy of fundamental rights seeking protection of life and liberty irrespective of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga directed the police to grant protection to a major couple, not of marriageable age, facing threats from family and held that regardless of whether a citizen was a minor or a major, it was the constitutional obligation of the State to treat right to human life on a much higher pedestal.
Title: Jagdish Choudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 228
Rajasthan high Court ruled that Rule 76 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (“the Rules”) applies only when the lease holder dies intestate, without any will. It was opined that Rule 76 operated in a situation where the lease holder died without any will. In case of a will, the property transmitted to the beneficiary as per law and in such a case, the beneficiary of the mining lease was not required to submit an NOC to mutate the lease in his/her name.
“When a person executes a will, the property transmits to the beneficiary by operation of law. And when the beneficiary claims mutation in his/ her name on the basis of will, requirement of 'NOC' does not arise. This Court is firmly of the view that NOC or affidavit or consent of the petitioner is not required, for the purpose of mutating the land in the name of beneficiary of the will.”
Rajasthan High Court Asks Police To Consider Protection Plea By Already Married Live-In Partners
Title: Maya & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 229
Rajasthan High Court directed the local Police to consider providing necessary protection to a man and woman living in a live-in relationship outside their respective wedlocks.
The bench referred to Kanti and another Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2023) where while dealing with similar facts as a puisne Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Monga had ruled that the key issue was not the legality of petitioners' relationship but whether they were entitled to protection in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was ruled that even though the relationship of the couple was prima facie adulterous in nature, in a nation governed by Rule of Law, fundamental right under Article 21 stood on a much higher pedestal and had to be protected irrespective of the legitimacy of relationship between the parties.
Title: Neha Kumar Jogi v the Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 230
Rajasthan High Court rejected the petition of a NEET candidate seeking an increase in marks and consequent revision in rank, alleging unjust and arbitrary deduction of marks despite marking the correct answer in the OMR Sheet.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain highlighted that firstly, the student had raised the objection after the termination of the window for raising such objections set by the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) and secondly, she had marked two answers for the concerned question which was against the explicit instructions given for filling the OMR Sheet.
Title: Yatendra Kumar Sharma v Smt. Swati Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 231
Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition seeking directions to the District Court for expeditious decision on a divorce petition within a time bound period of six months.
The bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that in the absence of any statistics on pending or disposal of cases before the concerned court, no sweeping directions could be passed to decide a case on priority. The Court opined that such an order interfered with the cause list of the court and also the corresponding priorities of the other pending matters.
Title: M/s Shakti Foundation v the Chairman, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 232
Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that there cannot be an absolute rule of estoppel wherein one is not allowed to raise a dispute even after he/she had signed a no claim or discharge certificate, and each case should be looked into on its own facts and circumstances.
“This Court does not find any strong ground to hold that the applicant is estopped to raise the dispute, merely on the basis of receiving the balance amount refunded by RIICO. Therefore, such contention raised by and on behalf of respondents is hereby rejected.”