Rajasthan High Court Half-Yearly Digest: January To June 2022 [Citations: 1 - 202]
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202 Digests Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: January 2022 [Citations 1 - 43] Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations: 44 - 81] Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations: 82 - 114] Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations: 115 - 153] Rajasthan High Court...
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
Digests
Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: January 2022 [Citations 1 - 43]
Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations: 44 - 81]
Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations: 82 - 114]
Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations: 115 - 153]
Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citations: 154 - 178]
Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations: 179 - 202]
Rajasthan High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations: 1 - 114]
Nominal Index
Laxmilal Salvi v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 1
Seemajan Kalyan Samiti, Rajasthan v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 2
School Development Management Committee, Shri Hari Singh Senior Secondary School and Ors v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 3
D.K. Garg and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 4
Ramchandra Nath Siddh Son of Poos Nath Sidh v. The Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 5
Dr, Karanjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 6
Chetan Choudhary v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 7
Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 8
Shobha and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 9
Madhuram and Ors v. State of Rajasthan, with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 10
Kunal Sharma and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 11
Chunnilal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 12
Smt Garima Sauda v. Goverdhan Singh and others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 13
Abhimanyu Sharda and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 14
Pragya Prateek Shukla and another v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 15
Income- Tax Contigent Employees Union and Anr. v. Union Of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 16
LNJ Power Ventures Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 17
Suresh Thanvi v. State Of Rajasthan and Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 18
Sheela Dhobi v. Satish 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 19
Shobha Devi v. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 20
Kailash Chandra Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 21
Naresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 22
Lahar Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 23
Anita Suthar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 24
Tej Singh and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 25
Bhagwati Prasad v. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 26
Tax Bar Association and Anr v. Union Of India and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 27
Dr. Gopal Choudhary v. UG/PG Ayush Counseling Board and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 28
Smt. Sayari and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 29
The National Insurance Co. Ltd, through its Regional Manager, Jaipur v. Mohini Devi & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 30
Shyam Seva Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 31
Meeta Agarwal v. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 32
Anupama Singh v. Badri Narayan Sharma & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 33
M/s Triveni Electrodes v. Union Of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 34
United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt Soniya 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 35
Mohan Lal S/o Okha Ram v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 36
Parul Khurana v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 37
M/s S.k. Metal v. Assistant Commissioner, B II Enforcement Wing II, Department Of Commercial Taxes 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 38
Dr. Neha Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 39
Ashwini Chaturvedid v. High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 40
Sudesh Taneja v. Income Tax Officer, and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 41
Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 42
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Jodhpur, Through Its Chairman v. The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972, And The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj.) 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 43
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Kota v. Shyam @ Jagdish S/o Gopal Lal 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 44
M/s. Shera Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 45
Dr. Naveen Jakhar v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 46
Sunita Rani v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 47
Madhav Singh Mehru and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 48
Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 49
Surendra Jain v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 50
Rituraj Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 51
Tanay Jain v. Union of India and Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 52
Nirmal Kumar Pitaliya v. State Of Rajasthan and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 53
Rudresh Jhunjhunwala and Ors. v. Satish Kumar and Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 54
New India Assurance Company Ltd., through Regional Manager v. Smt. Kanchan Devi 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 55
Rajasthan High Court Bar Association Versus State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 56
Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 57
Asharam @ Ashumal v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 58
Air Tree Foundation Society v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 59
Balaji Nagar Vikas Samiti, Through Its President Heera Lal Kulariya v. Jodhpur Development Authority 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 60
Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 61
Arvind Sharma v. North-West Railway and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 62
Lakhpat Ola v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 63
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Circle-A, Bharatpur Rajasthan v. M/s C.P. Agro Industries Roopwas, Bharatpur, Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 64
No. 970250021 Sep/driver Ramraj Meena v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 65
Vijay Narayan Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 66
Hari Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 67
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Manhbar Devi 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 68
Smt. Parwati Devi W/O Late Shri Mool Singh Vs. Director (G) and Nodal Officer (PG)2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 69
Satya Narayan & Ors. v. The H.D.F.C. Irgo General Insurance Company Limited & Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 70
Soniya Burdak v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 71
M/S Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd. v.. The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 72
Ankit Sharma & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 73
Tasleem Ahmed Khan v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 74
Rajkamal Basitha v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 75
Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Ankit Sharma & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 76
Rakesh Garg Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 77
Radhakrishan Meena v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 78
Union Of India & Anr. v. Harendra Gawaria 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 79
Suresh v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 80
Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) v. The State Of Rajasthan and Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 81
Chitranshi Goyal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 82
Prakash Chand Saini v. State Of Rajasthan; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 83
Bhagwati Singh (Since Deceased) S/o (Late) Shri Raja Mansingh v. Raja Laxman Singh S/o (Late) Shri Raja Mansingh and connected matter; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 84
Karma Ram v. The Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, through its Secretary; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 85
Vinod Sharma v. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 86
M/s B.r. Construction Company Versus Additional Director; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 87
Gajendra Purbia & Anr. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 88
Sawai Singh Sodha & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 89
Dharmender Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 90
Shri Labana Gawaria Sikh Samaj Sewa Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 91
G.k. Construction Company, Through Its Owner Govind Katariya v. Balaji Makan Samagri Stores, Through Its Proprietor Mallaram Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 92
Bot Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 93
Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 94
Nisha v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 95
Chandrakant Jain v. Veermati Jain 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 96
Ajit Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 97
Anju Boyal v. Ravindra Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 98
Mahesh Swami v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 99
Sita Devi Educational Society, Bhilwara & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 100
Prem v. Amar Jeet Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 101
Rajasthan Housing Board through Dy. Housing Commissioner & Resident Engineer v. Legal Representatives of deceased plaintiff Mani Ram 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 101
Jaipur Texweaving Park Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 102
Ramratan Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 104
Smt Meena v. State, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 105
Salman Khan v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 106
Rahul Katara v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 107
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director & Ors. v. Udai Singh Kumawat 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 108
Nand Kishore & Anr. v. Saleem Khan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 109
Ratan Devi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 110
T.C. Gupta v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 111
Sohan Singh Rao Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 112
Pacific Industries Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 113
Lakshya Purohit v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 114
Pratap Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 115
Suo Moto, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench v. Anand Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 116
Laxman v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 117
State, Through PP v. Atmaram & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 118
Anshul Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 119
Jal Grahan Vikas Sanstha, Riwadi, District Jaisalmer Through Its President Mathar Khan v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 120
Mohammed Amin Through His Son:Zulkafil Amin Ansari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 121
Nand Lal Through His Wife Rekha v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 122
Kavita Bhargava v. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.) 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 123
Akheraj v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 124
Jagdish Prasad Meena v. The State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 125
Suresh Sharma & Anr. v. Dhanwanti Sharma 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 126
Avadesh Kumar Purohit v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 127
Trehan Apna Ghar Buildwell Private Limited through its Director/Authorised Signatory v. Munish Ranjan Sahay 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 128
Master Arjun Choudhary Through His Father Mr. Bhanwar Lal v. Chairman, Army Public School, Jodhpur & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 129
Deepak Kumar Gupta & Ors. .v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 130
Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 131
Kamalkant & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 132
Shri Mandar Jain Sangh, Mandar, Through Its Trustee Bhanwarlal Doshi v. Gram Panchayat, Mandar, Through Its Sarpanch, TehsilReodar, District Sirohi & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 133
Girdhari Singh Through His Father Kishor Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 134
Haider Khan v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 135
Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 136
Ratna v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 137
Kalu Ram Jangid v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 138
M/s.Mangalam Arts through its partner Sh.Rajendra Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 139
Sudhir Bordiya v. State, Through Pp 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 140
State Bank Of India v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 141
Mahendra Singh & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 142
Prahlad v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 143
Raman v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 144
M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 145
Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 146
Neeraj Jain v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 147
Manisha Khator v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 148
Doli Mandir Sri Mahadev Ji (Pahadeshwar Mahadev), Ludrada Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer Through Its Devotee Shri Vikram Singh v. District Collector, Barmer & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 149
Vishal Kochar v. Smt. Pulkit Sahni & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 150
Sunita Meena v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through its Registrar General & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 151
Sanjay Ghiya v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 152
Anop Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 153
Sudarshan Purohit v. The Hon'ble High Court For Judicature Of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 154
Bharat Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 155
Prem Chand Deshantri v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 156
Mahendra Yadav & Anr. v. Bhagwan Devi & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 157
Kumar Indu Bhushan v. Union Of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 158
Azaz Khan v. N.I.A. through Special PP and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 159
Raju Singh v. Twinkle Kanwar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 160
Adarsh Shiksha Parishad Samiti & Anr v. Gajanand Sharma & Ors. with other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 161
State Of Rajasthan & Anr. v. M/s. Godhara Construction Company 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 162
Mumtaz Mohd. V District Collector Pali and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 163
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P v. Komal Lodha 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 164
Simorna v. State of Rajasthan through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 165
M/s Vivek Pharmachem (India) Ltd. v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 166
Om Prakash Kumawat v. Hero Housing Finance Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 167
Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s. Punusumi India Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 168
Chandra Bhal Singh v. State Of Raj And Ors and connected matters.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 169
Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 170
Hemraj v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 171
Mangal Das through LRS v. Amar Singh through LRS 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 172
Fula @ Fulchand v. State Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 173
Neha Mathur & Anr. v. Dr. Arvind Kishore with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 174
Gourav Sharma & Anr. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 175
Amit Swami & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
General Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur & Anr. v. Sonu & Anr. with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
Rajendra Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 179
Navneet Singh Purohit v. Law Prep Tutorial, Through Proprietor Shri Sagar Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 180
Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL versus Ajmer Smart City Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
Hemant Nahta v. The Honble Speaker, Rajasthan Assembly & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
Geetanjali Medical College And Hospital v. The Union of India with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
Bhim Saini @ Bhimraj Saini v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
Raju @ Rajkumar Through His Brother Sh. Sharwarmal v. State & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
Sarvjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
Richa Dharu v. Hemant Panwar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
Smt Kamla v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. .v. Sharda 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
Manisha Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
Bhavin Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
Bheru Lal v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
Chitrank Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
Bhan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
Victim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
Gopi Kishan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp with connected matter 197
Pradeep Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur 198
Pooja Gurjar & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 199
Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. Staff Selection Board, Jaipur & Ors. 200
Puneet Mohnot v. State Of Rajasthan 201
Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur 202
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Laxmilal Salvi v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 1
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur dismissed a plea challenging the conditions on candidates to supply certified copies of those 10 judgments of which the candidate has furnished particulars while submitting online application form.
As per the petitioner, this requirement is not part of the recruitment rules, and therefore, cannot be inserted through the recruitment notification.
The court observed, "Clause (f) of paragraph 6 of the main notification thus traces its root to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 36 of the said rules and is thus in consonance with the statutory recruitment rules. Rule 36(1) is not under challenge. The condition, therefore, cannot be set aside."
Case Title: Seemajan Kalyan Samiti, Rajasthan v. Union of India
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 2
A division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur dismissed a public interest litigation seeking direction to the Union government that ten kilometres of area from international border line (India and Pakistan) should be declared as no mining/commercial/industrial zone. The court observed that it is a sensitive policy matter and not a subject matter of decision by the High Court in a writ petition.
The bench comprising of Akil Kureshi, CJ and Rameshwar Vyas J. observed,
"In our opinion, these are sensitive policy matters. What should be the buffer zone for permitting mining operations and other commercial operations near the international border, cannot be subject matter of decision by the High Court in a writ petition.
In addition to the above, the plea also seek permission for mining lease already granted should be cancelled. Further, it was also prayed that the decision to shut down Border Intelligence Chowkis be reversed.
Case Title: School Development Management Committee, Shri Hari Singh Senior Secondary School and Ors v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 3
While allowing the plea filed by the petitioner, the single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur held that the impugned decision of the State seeking to convert the school in question from a Hindi medium to an English Medium school with immediate effect, is fortiori, violative of Article 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.
Justice Dinesh Mehta held that English, as a medium of instruction, cannot be thrusted upon a child even by a legislation enacted by the State Government, much less by a policy decision.
The present petition, filed by School Development Management Committee of Shri Hari Singh Senior Secondary School, Pilwa Panchayat Samiti Dechu, Jodhpur, challenging the decisions of Sept 2021 taken by the state government which converted petitioners' Hindi Medium school to an English Medium School - Mahatma Gandhi Government School (English Medium).
Case Title: D.K. Garg and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 4
A division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur the order of the Power Sector Companies by which the entire Cadre of Feeder Manager in 5 Power Sector Companies of Rajasthan was merged with the Cadre of Assistant Engineer (O&M) and they were adjusted in the seniority list of 2010-11 & 2011-12.
The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rameshwar Vyas observed that it is settled position of law that equating the posts or merging the posts or grant of seniority lies within the exclusive domain of the employer or the State Government. The scope of interference or judicial review is very limited. Court added that interference of court in policy matters is permissible only when there is a lacuna or procedural lapse in the decision making process.
Case Title: Ramchandra Nath Siddh Son of Poos Nath Sidh v. The Union of India and Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 5
A single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur directed Union government to keep a post vacant for candidate suffering from Cubitus Valgu and having Tattoo Mark in pursuance of CISF Examination, 2019, till further orders.
After hearing the petitioner on interim relief, Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal ruled, "Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material on record, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondents to keep a post vacant in pursuance of examination, 2019, till further orders."
Case Title: Dr, Karanjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 6
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur dismissed a plea challenging the RPSC procedure for the selection of Assistant Professors in government colleges for a total number of 918 posts. The question arose before the bench that whether or not the qualifications and the method of recruitment, as provided in the advertisement and which are followed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), are in consonance with the UGC guidelines.
The bench of Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal noted, "We may recall, more than 1,50,000 candidates have applied for 918 posts. As noted, UGC regulations have not provided any cut-off for shortlisting the candidates on the basis of scores to be allotted in terms of the table. Even if we permit the degree of latitude to the recruiting agency and expect calling for oral interview candidates 5 times the number of notified vacancies, this would require conducting the oral interview close to 5,000 candidates".
Case Title: Chetan Choudhary v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 7
The Rajasthan High Court on Monday directed the Central government to expeditiously decide on the claim application filed by a depositor of the beleaguered Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.
It ordered that the said decision has to be taken preferably within a period of 90 days, strictly in accordance with the law.
Justice Dinesh Mehta ordered, " The respondents are directed to take a decision on the application filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order strictly in accordance with rules and guidelines governing the field."
The Adarsh Credit Co-op Society allegedly floated several fake companies and siphoned off its depositors money, approximately Rs. 8,000 Crore.
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 8
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered the competent authority of NEET to allot an appropriate college to a citizen of Pakistan, in accordance with his merit, while ignoring the fact that he does not possess a Long Term Visa.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, in his order, observed, " Petitioner appeared in the NEET (UG) Examination and has secured 80% marks, it is hereby ordered that the competent authority of the NEET shall allot appropriate college to the petitioner, of course, in accordance with his merit, however, ignoring the fact that the petitioner is not having Long Term Visa in his favour."
The court further added that the petitioner shall thereafter be permitted to pursue his course, which shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition.
The petitioner, his parents and siblings are Pakistani Citizens and they came to India on October 29, 2011 through valid Passport under Long Term Visa (LTV).
Case Title: Shobha and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 9
The Rajasthan High Court has denied Police protection to a runaway couple, apprehending threat from their families. The court observed that there is no material or reason for it to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril.
Justice Dinesh Mehta further observed, " If the petitioners have decided to marry, they must muster the audacity and possess tenacity to face and to persuade the society and their family to accept the step they have taken."
In the instant case, it noted that there is not even an iota of evidence to evince that the respondents (relatives of the petitioner No.1) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.
Case Title: Madhuram and Ors v. State of Rajasthan, with connected matter
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 10
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed and set aside conviction of five accused persons for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries/ murder, observing that the incident was nothing but a "free fight.
The Division Bench comprising Justices Rameshwar Vyas and Sandeep Mehta observed, " We have no hesitation in holding that the ingredients required to constitute an unlawful assembly are totally lacking in this case and hence, the implication of accused persons by virtue of Section 149 IPC is unwarranted and unsustainable".
Taking note of the facts of the case and the circumstances that led to an altercation between the complainants and the accused, it added,
" the incident has all trappings of a free-fight between the two parties without there being any motive for the accused to launch an assault with the intention to commit murder of any person from the complainant party."
Case Title: Kunal Sharma and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 11
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has allowed a NEET Candidate to avail the benefit of ESIC quota (ward of insured person quota) in the counselling process for admissions in MBBS/BDS Course.
Notwithstanding the fact that the requisite contributions to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation were not paid by the employer concerned, the Court held that the candidate cannot be denied the benefit of quota, provided his father, the insured person, had paid his contribution prior to the cut-off date.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur observed, " The non-deposit of contribution in spite of deduction will not make the person disentitle for the benefit of ward of insured person if the insured person had paid the contribution to his employer prior to 31.03.2021."
Case Title: Chunnilal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 12
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has directed the Nagar Palika, Kotputli to decide the objections submitted by 25 petitioners pursuant to the notices issued to them for removal of road encroachment. Justice Inderjeet Singh directed the authority to pass reasoned and speaking order within a period 30 days.
"I deem it just and proper to direct the respondent-Nagar Palika to decide the objections submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the notice issued to them, by reasoned and speaking order within a period 30 days," the order stated.
The writ petition was filed by the 25 individuals, all residents of Kotputli District in Jaipur, being aggrieved by the notices issued to them by the respondent-Nagar Palika, Kotputli in Dec 2021 for removal of encroachments from the road.
Case title: Smt Garima Sauda v. Goverdhan Singh and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 13
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that merely stating that a particular proceeding had lingered on before the Court for an unduly long period of time, cannot be seen as contemptuous.
Observing this, the Chief Justice Mr. Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana terminated a Contempt Petition filed by a Rajasthan Civil Judge, Garima Sauda against a practicing Advocate, Goverdhan Singh.
The case of the judicial officer was that in relation to a criminal case that was pending before her, Singh had made a highly objectionable comment on his Facebook page and several people had responded to that comment, and the same were also objectionable and contemptuous
Case Title: Abhimanyu Sharda and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 14
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that the interference of the Court in tender matters is very restrictive and it should refrain from interfering in the impugned policy decision of the government, pertaining to sale of Run of Mine Lignite.
Justice Inderjeet Singh, while dismissing the plea, ruled, "In formulating the conditions of tender document, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State Authorities and if the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, the interference of the Courts is very restrictive since no person can claim fundamental right to carry out business with the Government".
Case Title: Pragya Prateek Shukla and another v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 15
The Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentence awarded to a Faculty Member in the college and the Hostel Warden booked under Section 21 of the POCSO Act (among other offences) for their alleged failure to report a 'POCSO Case' of the hostel involving a minor girl, as it noted thus:
"Incidents are not uncommon where after deliberations, it is decided in a bonafide manner not to report such matters to the police, lest the reputation of the girl is tarnished. This aspect gains more importance because the hostel warden/higher-ups would definitely have preferred to deliberate with the parents of the girl before taking any such action."
Case Title: Income- Tax Contigent Employees Union and Anr. v. Union Of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 16
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a writ petition filed in representative capacity without proper authorization or resolution is not maintainable.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, observed, "We are of the firm view that the writ petition has been filed without proper authorization/resolution and hence, the same is not maintainable."
In furtherance, the court dismissed the writ petition purportedly filed on behalf of Income Tax Contingent Employees Union as not maintainable, in the absence of proper authorization.
Case Title: LNJ Power Ventures Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 17
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that power of judicial review vested in High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is one of the basic features of the Constitution and any legislation cannot override or curtail such jurisdiction.
Justice Pushpendra Bhati further held that High Courts, while exercising the power under Article 226, would take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment.
Case Title: Suresh Thanvi v. State Of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 18
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that land reserved for the public park in question shall not be allowed for commercial purposes like marriages/ parties etc. The decision was delivered in a public interest litigation filed by one Suresh Thanvi.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "It is hereby directed that the respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur shall ensure that the land in question shall be strictly used as a public park and no deviation shall be permitted in this regard. No commercial activities viz. marriages/ parties, etc. shall be allowed thereupon".
Case Title: Sheela Dhobi v. Satish
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 19
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a joint application filed by the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband for waiver of six months cooling off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce by mutual consent.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed, " In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the parties are sufficiently educated and are aware of their rights...as they have mutually decided to end their matrimony finding no hope/chance of reconciliation, I am of the opinion that their application for waiver of the statutory period of six months specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 deserves acceptance."
The parties had approached the court after being aggrieved with the order passed by the Family Court, Bhilwara, which on 16 Dec, 2021 dismissed the aforesaid prayer of the parties.
Case Title: Shobha Devi v. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 20
In a significant judgment, the single bench of Rajasthan High Court held that the married daughter of a deceased employee falls within the definition of 'dependents' for compassionate appointment.
"The perception of the daughter, after marriage no longer being a part of her father's household and becoming an exclusive part of her husband's household, is an outdated view and mindset."Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, observed.
The court observed that any discrimination between unmarried & married daughter and married son & married daughter would be in clear violation of Article 14 ,15 and 16 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Kailash Chandra Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 21
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that the employees of Central Co-Operative Bank, who remained out of service due to the latter's 'illogical' decision reducing the age of superannuation, are entitled to the salary for the said period. The Bank had passed a resolution, reducing the superannuation age from 60 to 58 years.
Justice Rekha Borana, observed, "Petitioners would be entitled to the salary for the period during which they remained out of service. The same shall be paid to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order".
While allowing the petition, the court ruled that if the salary is not paid within the said period, it would then be payable along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Case Title: Naresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 22
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that validity of an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be examined in a writ of habeas corpus.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta made it clear that such an order passed under the JJ Act is valid and thus, the person cannot be said to be under illegal confinement for the purpose of issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
" It is trite to state that validity of an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be examined in a writ of habeas corpus. Apparently, as the corpus has been sent to the Balika Gruh, Jodhpur under a valid order of the Child Welfare Committee in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, she is not under any kind of illegal confinement."
The present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for production of one Mst. 'P', claiming that she is his legally wedded wife and that she has been wrongfully confined.
Case Title: Lahar Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 23
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the state government to decide on a war widow's plea seeking grant of possession and document of title of the land allotted to her in 1991, under the relevant scheme.
Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that the petitioner is the widow of a martyr, who sacrificed his life for safety and dignity of the country. Thus, the least the State can do is either hand over the possession of the allotted land or search for an alternate piece of land.
It directed the petitioner to file a representation before the District Collector, Pali and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali along with relevant documents and order copy of the Court's decision within two weeks.
Case Title: Anita Suthar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 24
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that special bona fide residence is to be reckoned from the native place of residence of candidate & his parents and has nothing to do with marriage.
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "Special bona fide residence or residence is to be reckoned from the native place of residence of the candidate and his parents. It has nothing to do with marriage."
The court opined that the respondents cannot deny the petitioner Special Bonafide Resident Certificate (TSP Area) simply because she has moved out of Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) Area, as a consequence of her marriage.
Case Title: Tej Singh and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 25
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that writ petition against rejection of temporary injunction application by trial court is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed, "A writ petition against rejection of TI application by the trial Court is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as a hierarchy of appellate authorities have been provided in the (Rajasthan Tenancy) Act of 1955".
In the present matter, the petitioners had instituted a suit for declaration of rights under Section 88 along with an injunction application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955. The same was however rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 29.12.2021.
Case Title: Bhagwati Prasad v. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 26
The Rajasthan High Court has asked the authorities concerned to objectively examine the grievances raised in a writ petition pertaining to discharge of industrial effluents in the Railmagra Dam and take appropriate action within a period of two months.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed that the authorities shall be served a copy of the writ petition in the form of a representation. These authorities include Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur; the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jaipur and the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Rajsamand.
The bench further ruled, "Upon receiving the same, these authorities shall objectively examine the petitioners' grievances and pass a reasoned order/ take appropriate action thereupon, within a period of two months from the date of submission thereof."
Case Title: Tax Bar Association and Anr v. Union Of India and Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 27
The Rajasthan High Court has expressed its disinclination to entertain a public interest litigation seeking direction to the Income Tax Department to remove all the defects and glitches on its official portal. The court left it on the administration to deal with the issues at its level.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana observed, " At this stage, we leave it to the administration to deal with these issues at its level. We are hopeful that proper resolution of the difficulties of assessees would be made at the level of the administration itself without the requirement of Court's intervention."
Case Title: Dr. Gopal Choudhary v. UG/PG Ayush Counseling Board and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 28
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Ayush Counseling Board to allot appropriate college to the petitioner, an Ayurveda aspirant, against the vacant seats, for pursuing his PG course in the academic Session 2020-21.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed, " This Court is of the view that interest of justice would be better served if the petitioner is accorded admission in Ayurveda PG course. Keeping the seats vacant serves nobody's cause – it is a wastage of resources."
Case Title: Smt. Sayari and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 29
While taking a lenient view, a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court reduced sentence awarded to an 82 year old woman charged under 498A IPC to the period already served by her which is nearly two and half months.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani observed, "We are of the view that as appellant Sayari has already attained the age of 82 years, the sentences awarded to her be reduced to the period already undergone by her which is nearly two and half months".
Affirming the conviction of the woman, the court ordered that for the offence under Section 498A IPC, as recorded by the trial court and passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, Pali, the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by her..
Case Title: The National Insurance Co. Ltd, through its Regional Manager, Jaipur v. Mohini Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 30
Case No: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 615/2007
Rajasthan High Court has recently ruled that appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not maintainable in absence of framing any substantial question of law.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while dismissing the appeal, observed, "I do not find any ground to call for any interference on the factual findings recorded by the learned Commissioner. Since no substantial question of law has been formulated in the memo of appeal, hence, this appeal is not maintainable in view of the proviso attached to Section 30 of the Act of 1923."
The court pursued the proviso attached to Section 30 of the Act of 1923 and observed that appeal shall lie against any order passed by the learned Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
Case Title: Shyam Seva Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 31
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that mere formation of a committee cannot take away rights of a private college/institution, which is otherwise eligible and entitled for enhancement of the intake capacity.
The court opined that the decision of forming a five member committee of the Ministers of the State Government, in order to take policy decisions in relation to establishment of and setting standard for private colleges, is absolutely misplaced.
The court observed that the state's action of not permitting the enhancement of the intake capacity of the petitioner institution is arbitrary and illegal.
Case Title: Meeta Agarwal v. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 32
A single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that under section 21 of Civil Procedure, Code, 1908, the objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction shall be taken at the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "It is settled position of law as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction shall be taken at the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity".
Notably, the court observed that adjournments in the suit should not be granted without just cause and when unnecessarily warranted be, by a reasoned order or on a proper application in writing there being filed to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Case Title: Anupama Singh v. Badri Narayan Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 33
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has observed that a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable, if two interpretations are possible, and if the action in question is not contumacious.
The judgment was delivered in the contempt plea filed for non-compliance of court's order which granted appointment and consequential benefits to the petitioner, a female health worker.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "It is not in dispute that as far as directions to allow the petitioner to join services as Female Health Worker had already been complied with and further according to the respondents, the consequential benefits flowing pursuant to the order of appointment of petitioner dated 08.07.2000 have also been accorded vide order dated 25.10.2011".
Case Title: M/s Triveni Electrodes v. Union Of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 34
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has upheld the vires of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The same pertains to Refund of tax.
Noting that the Supreme Court has already upheld the vires of the statutory provision in question, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Sameer Jain, observed,
" We may note one development, namely, that the Supreme Court in the Union of India and others Vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt.Ltd. , has upheld the vires of the statutory provisions under consideration. That being the situation, the petitioner's challenge to the statutory provisions must come to an end ".
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt Soniya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 35
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur upheld the decision of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Alwar which, while relying on the 'principle of pay and recover', directed the insurance company to first pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the vehicle owner.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed, "Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove that the declaration of cancellation/ nullifying the driving licence of the Driver was ever brought to the knowledge of the owner of vehicle and it is not proved that the owner was guilty of negligence in not following the due care and caution to fulfil the conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in following the principle of "pay and recover".
Case Title: Mohan Lal S/o Okha Ram v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 36
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt.
The observation was made while hearing an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against the judgment of the trial court, whereby appellants were convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment.
A division of Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "It is clear that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the trial court that the defence failed to prove that the accused was affected with such mental ailment, which prevented him from understanding the consequences of his acts, is totally unjustified".
Case Title: Parul Khurana v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 37
The Rajasthan High Court observed that there is nothing in law that permits a candidate to apply in the 'Divorcee Female' category in the expectancy that a divorce decree would be granted by the Court.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed,
"For a person, applying in the said category, the status of being divorced was imperative. There is nothing in law which can permit a candidate to apply in the said category in the expectancy that a decree would be granted".
The petitioner had filed a writ petition assailing the notice whereby her candidature was rejected as she did not possess the decree of divorce on the last date of submission of the online application form for the post of Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi and English) in the District Courts and the District Legal Services Authorities.
Case Title: M/s S.k. Metal v. Assistant Commissioner, B II Enforcement Wing II, Department Of Commercial Taxes
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 38
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the vires of Section 70 of Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 which provides for Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.
After perusing the provision, the division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain ruled, " The provision thus while empowering the proper officer to summon a person to give evidence or to produce documents, controls such exercise of powers by providing that the summons may be issued where a proper officer considers it necessary that such person is required to give evidence or to produce certain documents. These powers are not thus unguided or uncanalised."
The court recalled that Section 14C of the Central Excise Act and Section 108 of the Customs Act contain similar provisions authorizing the appropriate officer with the power to summon attendance of a witness for recording statement or for production of documents.
Case Title: Dr. Neha Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 39
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal filed by several doctors directing the respondent authorities to consider their experience of service in Government hospitals of remote and difficult areas till 31.10.2021, instead of 30.09.2021.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain, observed, "The policy of the State is to grant incentive. No candidate has a vested right to claim such incentives, that too dehors the State policy. Such cut off date cannot be kept fluctuating. The date of counselling would depend on several factors. The suggestion that experience gained by the candidate right till the first date of counseling is therefore not acceptable. There is yet another angle to this issue."
The court opined that grant of incentive itself is a policy matter and based on the discretion of State authorities and any extension for considering the experience is also part of such discretionary exercise of the powers. The court added that unless it is shown that such discretion is exercised arbitrarily or malafidely this Court would not interfere in such policy matters.
Case Title: Ashwini Chaturvedid v. High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 40
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the final results of the Civil Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services (Preliminary Examination).
The exam was conducted on 28.11.2021 and the final result for the same was declared on 11.01.2022.
The present plea was filed by one Ashwini Chaturvedi. She had challenged the administration's decision on the correct choice in relation to question No.80 and its decision to delete question No.81, through which the petitioner missed out clearing the RJS preliminary examination's cut-off only by 1 mark.
A division bench of Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, observed, " We do not think that the petitioner has made out any case for interference. As is well settled through series of judgments of the Supreme Court, interference by the High Court in specialized fields where recruitment is being made through specialized agencies, should be the minimum."
Case Title: Sudesh Taneja v. Income Tax Officer, and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 41
Providing relief to a batch of petitioners, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court quashed notices issued by the Assessing Officers under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act of 1961) for reopening assessments for various assessment years.
The petitioners have also challenged portions of two notifications issued by CBDT clarifying that provisions of Sections 148, 149 and 151 of the Act as on 31.03.2021 shall apply for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 148 for the past period. According to the petitioners, this explanation is beyond the jurisdiction of CBDT.
Chief Justice Akil Quresh and Justice Sameer Jain ruled, "A notice which had become time barred prior to 01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, would not be revived by virtue of the application of Section 149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021. All the notices issued in the present cases are after 01.04.2021 and have been issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act and are therefore invalid."
Case Title: Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 42
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that alienation of a property during pendency of a suit is null and void and hence, an application filed by the subsequent purchaser for impleadment as a necessary and proper party is not untenable in law.
Justice Sameer Jain, observed, "The provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the judgments cited at bar by learned counsel for the respondents, in loud voice, have held that alienation having been made in favour of any party during pendency of the suit, was hit by doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and hence, the said transaction is nullity, illegal and void and the Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that in the said situation, the application filed by the subsequent purchaser for impleading as necessary and proper party is not tenable."
Essentially, as per the petitioner, he along with proforma-respondents purchased a land from one Rajani Upadhaya and was never informed about pendency of suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed in favour of the latter.
Case Title: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Jodhpur, Through Its Chairman v. The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972, And The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 43
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that an employee must receive gratuity, either under the Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 or under the Regulations framed by the bank, whichever is more beneficial. However, an employee can not choose computation of gratuity under one statute and seek benefits of other provisions under another statute.
The observation was made by a division bench of Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Rameshwar Vyas while dealing with a clutch of petitions raising a question as to whether employees of the Gramin Bank can claim benefits the 1972 Act or under Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, or both.
It held,
"the scheme of gratuity under the Act of 1972 and under the regulations framed by the bank are different. For example, the Act of 1972 prescribes the ceiling beyond which the gratuity would not be paid irrespective of the computation. There is no such ceiling prescribed under the regulations. However, the regulations have other inherent limitations in computation of gratuity such as the gratuity computation would not exceed 15 months' salary upto 30 years of service, after which an additional benefit of half month's salary would be added to the payable gratuity. The employee, therefore, can claim gratuity either under the Act of 1972 or under the regulations framed by the bank, but cannot claim the benefit under both the statutes."
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Kota v. Shyam @ Jagdish S/o Gopal Lal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 44
The Rajasthan High Court has held that under the scheme of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the Compensation Commissioner is the last authority to decide any claim on facts. No appeal lies against its order unless a substantial question of law is involved.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand therefore dismissed an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bundi, for not qualifying any substantial question of law under.
It observed, " Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed."
Case Title: M/s. Shera Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 45
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside e-auction notices issued by the Water Department which demanded additional performance security for unbalanced bids, as arbitrary and illegal.
The court directed the respondents-state to permit the petitioners to perform the contract in accordance with law, without insisting upon additional performance security.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, ruled,
"A look at the provision given in Rule 75 of the Rules of 2013 shows that it provides for performance security only and does not envisage any other security in the name of additional performance security or otherwise. According to this Court, all the terms and conditions of a bid document are supposed to conform to the statutory provisions...The letter of the respondents and corresponding condition in the e-bid document requiring the petitioners to furnish additional performance security are hereby quashed."
Case Title: Dr. Naveen Jakhar v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 46
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that that the writ Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, may not interfere in every decision that is taken on the administrative side and fixing of a cut-off date, will be out of purview of a writ Court until the same is either fixed by keeping in mind the whimsical considerations or fixed in a mala fide manner
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur ruled, "This Court finds that the writ Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, may not interfere in every decision that is taken on the administrative side and fixing of a cut-off date, will be out of purview of a writ Court until the same is either fixed by keeping in mind the whimsical considerations or fixed in a malafide manner."
The court observed that State Government has found that rendering of service in remote, difficult and rural areas entitles a person to certain incentive/bonus marks, then the decision of the State Government, in its wisdom and as a matter of policy, to confer such benefit upto a particular date cannot be termed as whimsical or malafide.
Case Title: Sunita Rani v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 47
The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that females outside the State on migrating to Rajasthan post marriage may not be entitled to the benefit of reservation in public employment in the State, on account of being a member of a SC or ST or OBC in another State.
However, they can avail of other benefits as being an member of a reserved category, if the scheme envisages domicile or residence as entitlement.
The observation was made in a writ petition filed by one Sunita Rani, being aggrieved with the action of the respondents- Sub Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar of Hanumangarh for not accepting her application for issuance of a caste certificate in her favour declaring that she is a member of Scheduled Caste (SC).
Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled, "So it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled for reservation in public employment in the State of Rajasthan being the resident of State of Punjab, however, she can get the other benefits as being an SC on the strength of the certificate if the scheme envisages domicile or residence as entitlement."
Case Title: Madhav Singh Mehru and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 48
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the question of what should be the educational qualification and experience requirement for appointment to a public post are the matters to be decided by the Government authorities and as an employer, the State administration is best suited to frame its rules to fulfil the requirements of a post in question.
The division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas observed, "Essentially, what should be the education qualification and experience requirement for appointment to a public post are the matters to be decided by the Government authorities. As an employer, the State administration is best suited to frame its rules to fulfil the requirements of a post in question."
Case Title: Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 49
The Rajasthan High Court has asked the State administration to set up a high powered committee, who would on a permanent basis monitor the infrastructural and other related issues concerning Government Sanskrit schools in the state.
The Bench of Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas observed that though the issues raised by the petitioners are genuine and valid, however, in public interest jurisdiction it is impossible for it to engage itself into micro management.
" The duty of the Court is to catalyse the government mechanism to take appropriate steps. It is simply not possible for the Court to minutely monitor every single aspect of public administration. The Government has the mechanism, wherewithal as also duty and responsibility to carry out such functions. Every failure of administration does not necessarily have cure only in law to be enforced by the Court," it observed.
Case Title: Surendra Jain v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 50
The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday made significant observations on the Covid-19 situation in the state. It observed that like many other states in the country, Rajasthan is fire-fighting against the third rise, but by all accounts, the situation is not out of control.
Hoping for a downward trend in cases, the division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas closed a PIL concerning Covid-19 management in the state.
The PIL was filed by one Surendra Jain last year, seeking directions to the State authorities to ensure sufficient and equitable distribution of life saving drugs and medical equipments such as Remdesivir, Oxygen cylinders etc. He also sought directions for appropriate treatment and management at Covid hospitals.
Case Title: Rituraj Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 51
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court refused to give directions in a plea seeking protection & maintenance of wildlife to control man-animal conflict & rescue and animals in distress in kumbhalgarh & todgarh wildlife sanctuaries.
Through this petition, the petitioner has taken up the cause of proper protection and maintenance of wildlife in and around Kumbhalgarh and Todgarh wildlife sanctuaries.
In particular, according to the petitioner for want of sufficient staff and equipments, the forest department has found it extremely difficult to control the situations of man-animal conflicts as well as to take prompt action for rescue of wild animals in distress.
Case Title: Tanay Jain v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 52
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that Black Fungus infections and the spread had not been stated to be of such a magnitude that it has been considered to be a pandemic.
Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Birendra Kumar, while refusing to give any direction on the plea, observed:
"An issue of providing compensation for victims Black-Fungus infective virus has also been raised. On this count we do not think that we have to pass any order at this stage because such kind of infections and the spread had not been stated to be of such a magnitude that it has been considered to be a pandemic."
In this matter, a public interest litigation has been filed by one Tanay Jain seeking issuance of directions for payment of ex-gratia compensation to those who lost their family members due to Covid-19 pandemic.
Case Title: Nirmal Kumar Pitaliya v. State Of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 53
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea filed by the Chairman of Municipal Board Badi Sadri challenging his suspension by the state government.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed,
"The allegation against the petitioner is acceptance of bribe, in discharge of his official duties, through his brother-in-law for clearing the bills of the complainant. The order of suspension states that if the petitioner is not suspended there is likelihood of him influencing the inquiry and the evidence. The said reason spelt out in the order of suspension is not only indicative of application of mind but also fulfils the requirement of recording reasons. According to this Court, the reason given thereunder is sufficient to justify the suspension of the petitioner."
Essentially, on a complaint, the police apprehended Kush Sharma, brother in-law of the petitioner while accepting a sum of Rs.2 lacs allegedly as a bribe on behalf of the petitioner. An FIR was lodged on 26.05.2021 and both of them were implicated. The state government, on information sent by Anti Corruption Deptt, placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 05.07.2021. Aggrieved by the suspension order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 09.12.2021. It is alleged that petitioner has not been served with any notice from the State Government in relation to any preliminary inquiry.
Case Title: Rudresh Jhunjhunwala and Ors. v. Satish Kumar and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 54
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that the appellate court cannot interfere when the trial court has exercised its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction to grant the temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, while disposing of the plea, observed,
"This Court is of considered view that this is not a fit case where the appellate court should exercise its power to interfere with the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court. Thus, no interference is called for with the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed."
Case Title: New India Assurance Company Ltd., through Regional Manager v. Smt. Kanchan Devi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 55
Reversing the findings of a Motor Accident Tribunal which had fixed 50% contributory negligence on the truck driver against which the claimants' car had dashed, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the car insurance company to reimburse the payments made by insurer of the truck.
Justice Birendra Kumar held that the Tribunal had passed the impugned order without taking note of the fact that the driver of the truck had died two days before the accident and the claimants' car had dashed into the truck which was in the seizure of the police and was parked in soiled portion of the road leaving the pitch road completely free for movement.
The bench thus ordered, "Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside to the extent that the Tribunal has fixed the liability to pay compensation on respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. owner and insurer of the truck. In fact, the liability was against the owner and insurer of car during use whereof the accident took place...Accordingly, the same is set aside and it is ordered that the entire liability to pay compensation goes against the owner and insurer of the car. Since the car was insured with respondent No.12 it is liable to pay entire compensation payable to the claimants...It has been informed that the appellant (truck insurer) has already paid Rs.5,10,500/- to the claimant. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to be reimbursed by respondent No.12."
Case Title: Rajasthan High Court Bar Association Versus State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 56
The Rajasthan High Court restrained state from issuance of registration certificate to Rajasthan High Court Senior Lawyers Association, Jaipur till further orders. The plea was filed by Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur through its General Secretary Adv. Girraj Prasad Sharma.
Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal, ruled, "Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned Senior Counsel and the material on record, the respondents No.1 & 2 are restrained from issuing registration certificate in favour of the respondent No.3 & 4, till further orders."
The court issued notice in this plea challenging the registration of 'Rajasthan High Court Senior Lawyers Association, Jaipur' in the name of society as it being violative of Section 3 read with Clause 17 of the Schedule of The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
Case Title: Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 57
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the government has authority in terms of Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 as it stood at the relevant time and Section 90-A as it stands today to regularise unauthorised conversions of agricultural lands.
The division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed, "Insofar as the Government's desire to regularise the existing land uses, the same falls into broad categories, (a) where agricultural land is put to non-agricultural use without permission and (b) where such lands as aforesaid or other lands of nonagricultural character which have been put to uses other than land use specified in the development plans. So far as clause (a) category of uses are concerned, per se we find no illegality in the approach of the Government. The Government has the authority in terms of Section 90B of the Act of 1956 as it stood at the relevant time and Section 90-A as it stands today to regularise such unauthorised land conversions."
Case Title: Asharam @ Ashumal v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 58
The Rajasthan High Court recently issued an order to summon Additional Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Ajay Pal Lamba for recording his evidence as a court witness in connection with Asaram's appeal challenging his conviction by lower Court in a minor's rape case.
The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani issued the order while allowing an application filed by Asaram under Section 391 CrPC [Appellate Court's power to take further evidence or direct it to be taken] to summon Senior IPS Officer Lamba as a court witness and to record his evidence, based on certain excerpts of the book co-authored by Lamba.
Case Title: Air Tree Foundation Society v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 59
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that mere general averments/allegations based on newspaper reports should not and will not be a cause for taking cognizance in public interest.
This petition was filed with a prayer for direction to the respondents-state that all the borewells in the State should be covered so that through accident there is no casualty of human beings or animals.
The plea was filed by Air Tree Foundation Society, through its Secretary, Shri Manish Sharma.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, while disposing the petition, observed,
"Mere general averments/allegations based on newspaper reports should not and will not be a cause for taking cognizance in public interest."
Case Title: Balaji Nagar Vikas Samiti, Through Its President Heera Lal Kulariya v. Jodhpur Development Authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 60
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that the disputed question of fact regarding title of the plot in question cannot be gone into by the High Court while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The court opined that the issues require a decision of civil court.
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed,
"In this view of the matter, manifestly, the disputed question of fact regarding title of the plot in question cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The issues definitely require decision of the civil court. Hence, the civil court is required to expedite the proceedings in the pending TI application."
Case Title: Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 61
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the state government to take steps to treat the transgender community as socially and educationally backward class of citizens and extend all kinds of reservations in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.
The division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas has granted four months' time to complete this exercise.
The development ensued in a writ petition filed by one Ganga Kumari, seeking effective reservation to the transgenders in terms of the mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Title: Arvind Sharma v. North-West Railway and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 62
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation opposing the decision of the railway authorities to close down the railway senior secondary school at Abu Road, which was operating since the year 1862.
Noting that the school has been running in losses due to dwindling number of students, the division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kuresh and Justice Sudesh Bansal observed,
" It is rather unfortunate that the school which has been in existence since over a century, may have to be closed down. It does disturb us that in an area where educational facilities have still not fully developed to the desired extent, one public school is under closure. However such sentimental issues cannot govern our judicial discretion. The railway authority which has to run the school is in best position to decide its future. Unless the decision is shown to be malafide or opposed to any of the legal principles, the Court would not substitute its wisdom or desire for that of the authority. With a heavy heart we dismiss this petition."
The Court however made it clear that the decision to close the school shall not be implemented till the end of the current academic term.
Case Title: Lakhpat Ola v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 63
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has observed that in a public interest litigation, the petitioner is not absolved of producing at least a basic proof of the allegations levelled by him.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,
"Even otherwise we find the petition with long pleadings are long in averments but short in contents. The allegations made in the petition would require supporting evidence. Even in a public interest petition the petitioner is not absolved of producing at least a basic proof of his allegations."
The present public interest litigation was filed by one Lakhpat Ola, alleging that certain officials of the Government have embezzled public funds by committing irregularities in public works contracts.
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Circle-A, Bharatpur Rajasthan v. M/s C.P. Agro Industries Roopwas, Bharatpur, Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 64
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has observed that provisions of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 have been enacted to provide remedy for loss of revenue and not to punish the offender for committing economic offence and, therefore, mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of such provision.
The court added that breach would attract levy of penalty whenever the goods in movement have travelled with an incomplete form.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while placing reliance in Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2007 (7) SCC 269] observed,
"Even the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that provisions have been enacted to provide remedy for loss of revenue and it is not enacted to punish the offender for committing economic offence and, therefore, mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of such provision. The breach would attract levy of penalty whenever the goods in movement have travelled with an incomplete form."
Case Title: No. 970250021 Sep/driver Ramraj Meena v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 65
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has refused to interfere in the disciplinary authority's decision, which dismissed CRPF Constable-petitioner from service as he did not report for duty on completion of leave period.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,
"In our view the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. We may recall, the petitioner was engaged as constable of CRPF which is a disciplined force. He remained unauthorisedly absent without sanctioned leave or communication to the department for about one year. This was a clear case of misconduct."
Case Title: Vijay Narayan Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 66
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that no interference is permissible in exercise of powers of judicial review for matters pertaining to construction of public utility building, unless it is demonstrated that there is a flagrant violation of any provision of law/rules in the action of authorities or it suffer from mala fides.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled,
"It is the settled law that the matter regarding construction of a building of public utility is the domain of the Government and its functionaries and until and unless it is demonstrated that there is a flagrant violation of any provision of law/rules in the action of authorities or it suffer from mala fides, no interference is permissible in such administrative matters while exercising powers of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
The present writ petition was filed seeking directions to the respondent state to immediately stop or cancel the proposal/work of creating a new Gram Panchayat Building on land of Khasra No.3418/1. Alternatively, petitioners sought directions to the respondents to develop the existing Gram Panchayat Building by incorporating a closed school's land and that sanctioned budget of Rs.25.00 lacs be transferred for said purpose immediately. Petitioners alleged that the new
Case Title: Hari Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 67
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea seeking direction to the state government to treat the experience gained by the petitioner in Gujarat as eligible for award of bonus marks under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Rules, for recruitment to the post of Compounder / Nurse Junior Grade.
In furtherance, the court opined that the intention of the State is to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the enumerated schemes within the State of Rajasthan and not others.
Essentially, the petitioner, who is working with the Regional Ayurveda Research Institute, Ahmedabad (Gujarat), based on his experience certificate dated 1.7.2021, applied for the post and sought bonus marks for the experience as depicted in the experience certificate.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Manhbar Devi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 68
The Rajasthan High Court observed that any erroneous finding or any error of law cannot be the basis for entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 unless such erroneous findings do not give rise to substantial question of law.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed, "It is settled law that unless the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner, are not shown to be perverse, the same are not required to be interfered with in the appeal. Any erroneous finding or any error of law cannot be the basis for entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 unless such erroneous findings do not give rise to substantial question of law."
Case Title: Smt. Parwati Devi W/O Late Shri Mool Singh Vs. Director (G) and Nodal Officer (PG)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 69
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed refused to accept petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand and Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, ruled, "We are of the considered opinion that the contentions put forward by the counsel for the petitioners, do not carry any merit, as the subsequent representations were made after a decade. Thus, this Court is not able to accept the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court."
Case Title: Satya Narayan & Ors. v. The H.D.F.C. Irgo General Insurance Company Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 70
The question whether interest on compensation for motor accident claims exigible to tax and resultantly, is insurance company required to deduct tax at source while making such payment to the claimants has been referred to the larger bench by the division bench of Rajasthan High Court.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Uma Shanker Vyas, ordered,
"Under the circumstances reference may be made to the Larger Bench on following question:- 'Whether the interest payable on motor accident claim compensation is exigible to tax and resultantly is the insurance company required to deduct tax at source while making such payment to the claimants?"
The court observed, "In view of this position and also considering the importance of the issue as also the fact that the issue is a recurring one arising in large number of motor accident claim cases, it is desirable that there is an authoritative pronouncement on this question by Larger Bench."
Case Title: Soniya Burdak v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 71
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that no person has a vested right to be posted at a particular place. The court further observed that accepting a request for inter-district transfer of a recruit can lead to chain reaction and at times considerable administrative difficulties.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, ordered,
"The question of appointment or absorption in particular district, division or zone at the time of recruitment is essentially for the convenience of the selected candidate but this always is subject to administrative exigencies. No person has a vested right to be posted at a particular place. The selections and recruitments must attain finality."
The development ensued in a writ appeal filed by a PTI Grade-III recruit, seeking posting at Alwar instead of Jhunjhunu.
Case Title: M/S Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd. v.. The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 72
The Rajasthan High Court has held that officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) are not a competent authority to issue show cause notice and adjudicate the same as "proper officer" under Section 28 and 124 the Customs Act, 1962.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain, rued,
"DRI officer is not Competent Authority to issue show cause notice and adjudicate the same as "proper officer". The Act, the notification relied upon do not define and bring the DRI officers within four corners of "proper officers" having functions and powers to act under Section 28 of the Act of 1962 "
The court observed that the entire proceedings in the present case, initiated by officers of DRI in as much as by issuance of show cause notice under Section 28/124 of the Customs Act lacks jurisdiction and are without any authority of law because the present show cause notice is not issued by custom officer but by DRI officer who has not been assigned specific function/power under Section 6 to issue show cause notice U/S 28 of the Act of 1962.
Case Title: Ankit Sharma & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 73
In a significant development, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has quashed the preliminary exam results of RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Examination 2021 conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).
The court directed RPSC to revise the result of the preliminary examination and to prepare a fresh list of candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination accordingly.
The preliminary examination was conducted on 27.10.2021 and the final answer key was issued on 22.11.2021.
Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal, observed,
"The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions are partly allowed in the above mentioned terms. The final answer key dated 22.11.2021 is quashed to the extent as stated hereinabove. Resultantly, the result dated 19.11.2021 stands quashed. The RPSC is directed to revise the result of the preliminary examination and to prepare a fresh list of candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination accordingly."
Case Title: Tasleem Ahmed Khan v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 74
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has refused to grant interim stay in a plea seeking complete ban on exhibition of KGF-2 movie and its Teaser.
The movie is set to release on 14th April 2022.
The development ensued in an appeal filed by one Tasleem Ahmed Khan against an order dated 31.01.2021 passed by the Single Judge, whereby while issuing notice in the writ petition against the movie, interim stay was refused.
The appellant is primarily aggrieved by certain scenes showing the actors smoking cigarettes. It is contended that the same is not permissible as per the rules and regulations framed by the Government of India.
Case Title: Rajkamal Basitha v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 75
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the District Judge Recruitment process.
In this matter, all the petitioners herein failed to make a mark in the preliminary examination. They were not shortlisted and did not qualify for the main examination.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled,
"All in all we find that the exercise undertaken by the specially constituted committee which culminated into a well-reasoned report touching threadbare on each and every disputed question, and which report was accepted by the examination committee, calls for no interference."
Case Title: Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Ankit Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 76
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court stayed the single judge bench order which quashed the preliminary exam results of RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Examination 2021 conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).
The court ordered that it would be open for RPSC to conduct the written main examination on the rescheduled date.
The court refused to go into the questions threadbare and observed that it has prima facie belief that the learned Judge had exceeded the scope of writ jurisdiction in the present case. The court observed that no legal or factual malafides were demonstrated nor procedural illegality was established and in some cases there still exists a grey area, which inturn is not sufficient to overturn an expert's body's decision.
Case Title: Rakesh Garg Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 77
A Bench of Rajasthan High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, held that since the primary intention of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was the resolution of disputed taxes, the courts must adopt an interpretation that furthers this intention and not restrict its scope. Also, the court ruled that a clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), being declaratory in nature, cannot introduce a cut off date for its applicability.
Proceedings for penalty under the Act were initiated against the Assessee for failing to file an audit report under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty on the Assessee, an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) was filed which was dismissed by it. The Assessee thereby filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) along with an application for condonation of delay.In the meantime, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was passed by the Parliament, with effect from 17th March, 2020, for resolution of disputed tax.
Case Title: Radhakrishan Meena v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 78
In a case pertaining to rape on account of false promise to marriage, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that married educated women, depending upon the facts of each case, is supposed to be well aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man prior to solemnizing of the marriage.
The court opined that the consent of a woman under Section 375 of IPC can be held vitiated only on the ground of misconception of fact where such misconception was the basis of her surrender for establishing physical relationship. The court further opined that a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his words at the time of giving it, added the court.
Justice Farjand Ali, observed,
"When a woman is married and educated, then, depending on facts of each case, she is supposed to be well aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man prior to solemnizing of the marriage. In the event of a consent obtained by fraud, inducement is a necessary ingredient. There must be some material on record to hold prima facie that the girl was induced by the accused to such an extent that she was in agreement to have sexual intercourse with him"
Case Title: Union Of India & Anr. v. Harendra Gawaria
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 79
Recently, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur dealt with the question of whether the candidature of the respondent can be rejected by the Department of Railways on the ground of human error/bonafide mistake alone, because the date of the Postal Order was wrongly mentioned by him in the application, despite the fact that Postal Order was issued within the period of limitation.
In the present matter, the North Western Railway (NWR) Recruitment Cell issued an advertisement on 16.12.2010 by which the applications for recruitment on several posts of Group 'D'. were invited. The respondent submitted an application under the category of Other Backward Class. He qualified in the written examination, appeared in the physical eligibility test and qualified the medical test. Finally, the respondent was found fit, but subsequently, his candidature was rejected on 29.07.2013 by NWR for the reason that the Postal Order submitted by him was not within limitation.
Case Title: Suresh v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 80
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has issued guidelines for Test Identification Parade (TIP) in POCSO Cases.
The court ruled that special Judges of POCSO Act cases and all the District & Sessions Judges of the State shall ensure the immediate implementation of this order amongst all the judicial officers and all courts in their respective jurisdiction, which are conducting the trial of POCSO Cases
Justice Farjand Ali, while issuing the guidelines for TIP, rejected the bail application of the accused and ordered,
"This order shall be conveyed by the Registry of this Court to all learned special Judges of POCSO Act cases and all the District & Sessions Judges of the State, who shall ensure the immediate implementation of this order amongst all the judicial officers and all courts in their respective jurisdiction, which are conducting the trial of POCSO Cases."
Case Title: Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) v. The State Of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 81
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered to keep under its supervisory control the ongoing investigation by State's Special Operation Group (SOG) in the REET-2021 examination paper leak case.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,
"Investigation must not be fair but must also appear to be fully fair and free from any pulls or pressures. As of now, we do not see any reason to disturb the ongoing investigation in the hands of SOG. However we would keep the supervisory control of this ongoing investigation. This would enable us to observe closely the further progress of investigation and consider the option of forming a special investigating team if at any stage we find that the investigation is not progressing satisfactorily."
The development ensued in a public interest litigation filed by Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) for transferring the investigation of the matter to CBI.
Case Title: Chitranshi Goyal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 82
The Jaipur bench of Rajasthan High Court, while relying on Sections 23, 47 and 74 of Registration Act, 1908, reiterated that registration of sale deed shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.
Justice Sameer Jain, while allowing the plea, ruled,
"The prayers made by the petitioner in the present writ petition appear to be justified and the impugned action of the respondents communicated by them to the petitioner vide their letter/email dt.13/03/2019 in not considering the case of the petitioner for retail outlet under Group-1 is held to be unjustified. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet under the category of Group-1 and proceed further."
Case Title: Prakash Chand Saini v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 83
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the public notices for demolition issued by Nagar Palika asking all the occupants within the Kotputli road land to remove their structures.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, ordered,
"1. Any of the appellants-original petitioners who may have received the said notice dated 14/15.12.2021 may file objections before the authorities. If no objection is raised, the same be done within a period of 30 days from today. The objection which have already been received or those may be received 30 days thereafter be disposed of by the authorities by a speaking order as desired by the learned Single Judge.
2. Public notice dated 23.12.2021 is quashed."
Caste Title: Bhagwati Singh (Since Deceased) S/o (Late) Shri Raja Mansingh v. Raja Laxman Singh S/o (Late) Shri Raja Mansingh and connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 84
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that the use of salutations and titles such as "Raja", "Nawab" and "Rajkumar" in constitutional courts, all other Courts, tribunals, public offices of the State etc. is prohibited in terms of Articles 14, 18 and 363A of the Constitution of India. The court ordered that the said restriction will also apply in the public domain as well as public documents & public offices.
Justice Sameer Jain, ruled,
"In the light of above, this Court holds that in Constitutional Courts, all other Courts, Tribunals, public offices of the State etc., the use of salutation and titles is prohibited in terms of Articles 14 18 and 363A of the Constitution of India. The said restriction will also apply in the public domain as well as public documents & public offices."
The Court took up the issue on noticing that a respondent in the cause-title of a petition was addressed as "Raja Laxman Singh".
Case Title: Karma Ram v. The Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, through its Secretary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 85
The Rajasthan High Court directed the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan (RBSE) to get a fresh expert opinion by a different committee pertaining to one question of Hindi Subject in a plea challenging the final answer key of Rajasthan Eligibility Exam for Teachers (REET) 2021 Level-1.
The written examination of REET-2021 was held on 26.09.2021. The result of the same was published on 02.11.2021 along with the final answer key.
Justice Arun Bhansali, ruled,
"...the petitions to the extent of petitioners, who have raised objection qua Question No.79 in subject Hindi of Series 'J', which is question No.84 in 'K' series, 73 in 'L' series, and 69 in 'M' series, are partly allowed. The respondent-Board is accordingly directed to get a fresh expert opinion by a different committee on the said question and give effect to the opinion of the expert committee qua the petitioners who have raised objections qua said question No.79 (Subject: Hindi) in 'J' series and qua the same question in other series as well."
Case Title: Vinod Sharma v. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 86
The Rajasthan High Court observed that Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act, 2007) does not envisage an order of eviction even by the District Magistrate, much less the Tribunal.
The court dealt with the question whether pursuant to an application filed under Section 5 of Act, 2007 read with Rajasthan Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2010 (Rules, 2010'), can an order of eviction be passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 2007.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, while allowing the petition filed by one such child who was directed by the Tribunal to vacate his parents' premises, ruled,
"To conclude, while observing that the Act of 2007 does not envisage an order of eviction even by the District Magistrate, much less the Tribunal, this Court unhesitantly holds that order of ouster of the petitioner oppugned in the instant writ petition is dehors the provisions of the Act of 2007; beyond the scope of Rules of 2010 and also out of the powers of the Tribunal."
Case Title: M/s B.r. Construction Company Versus Additional Director
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 87
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the provisional attachment under CGST Act ceases to have effect after expiry of one year.
The division bench headed by the Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal while listing the matter on March 22, 2022 stayed the provisional attachment.
The bank account of the petitioner/assessee was placed under provisional attachment by an order in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) by the respondents.
- Proper Facts & Evidence Must Be Placed Before Court To Invoke PIL Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Gajendra Purbia & Anr. v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 88
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a citizen approaching the court in a public interest jurisdiction holds greater duty to make full research and present necessary facts before the court to cause further investigation.
In the present matter, serious allegations were made by the petitioners with respect to mis-management of the respondent No. 2, Arth Credit Cooperative Society.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana, while disposing of the petition, observed, "A citizen approaching the Court in a public interest jurisdiction holds a greater duty to make full research and present necessary facts before the Court to cause further investigation."
Case Title: Sawai Singh Sodha & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 89
The Rajasthan High Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation alleging corruption in MGNREGA. The court observed that there is no prima facie material in the petition to sustain the allegations levelled by the petitioners.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, observed, "After going through the petition, we find that though there are allegations made in the petition, there is no prima facie material along with the petition to sustain the allegations of the petitioners."
Case Title: Dharmender Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 90
The Rajasthan High Court on Monday dismissed as non-maintainable, a writ petition seeking various reliefs qua online video sharing platform, YouTube.
Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal refused to accept the submission of the petitioner that Youtube discharges the functions of a 'State', considering the public nature of the functions it performs.
"There is not a whisper of averment in the entire writ petition as to true nature of functions being discharged by the respondent No.2 (YouTube) or the same being of public importance. In absence of any factual foundation to substantiate the submission that the respondent No.1 has deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the respondent No.2 or it discharges the public functions which are akin to the Government functions, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner."
Case Title: Shri Labana Gawaria Sikh Samaj Sewa Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 91
The Rajasthan High Court has directed Reliance Jio to shift its 4G mobile tower from the existing place to 15-20 feets away from the gate of a Gurudwara within a period of two months. The plea was filed by Shri Labana Gawaria Sikh Samaj Sewa Samiti, Jodhpur through Its Secretary - Kripal Singh Sodhi.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, ordered, "In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 5 to shift the tower from the existing place to 15-20 feets away from the gate of Gurudwara within a period of two months. It is made clear that except the erection of the tower, no other attachment including generator can be placed near the tower."
Case Title: G.k. Construction Company, Through Its Owner Govind Katariya v. Balaji Makan Samagri Stores, Through Its Proprietor Mallaram Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ra) 92
The Rajasthan High Court observed that if modal auxiliary verbs or imperative words such as 'may', 'should' etc. are followed by the provision/expression prescribing lower bar/limit such as 'minimum', 'not below', etc. then, these words ('may', 'should', etc.) are required to be read as 'shall'.
The court dealt with the question whether the usage of word 'may' in section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act provides a discretion to the Court to impose or not to impose the condition of depositing minimum 20% of the fine amount.
Section 148 provides that in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court.
Case Title: Bot Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 93
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that unless the orders of eviction are set aside or stayed in any proceedings, eviction must follow.
Essentially, the present public interest litigation was filed seeking issuance of directions to the authorities to remove encroachments from the disputed land, which, according to the petitioner, was a playground of the school.
A division bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, while partly allowing the plea. ruled, "Therefore, subject to any remedy that the aforesaid respondents may have taken against the orders of eviction including order passed in appeal, the State authorities are duty bound to remove them from the land in question as they all suffer orders of eviction passed by an authority constituted under the law. Unless the orders of eviction are set aside or stayed in any proceedings, eviction must follow"
Case Title: Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 94
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court ordered that buses shall be seized of those bus operators who are found picking and dropping passengers in violation of relevant rules and regulations framed under the Motor Vehicles Act as also under the local laws.
Essentially, the public interest litigation has been filed praying that instead of making operational bus-stand at the place donated by the petitioner, as per decision already taken, buses are operating from the main road seriously affecting the movement of the vehicles and also giving rise to apprehension of the accidents.
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, ruled, "Those bus-operators, who are found picking and dropping passengers in violation of relevant rules and regulations framed under the Motor Vehicles Act as also under the local laws, shall be proceeded against them and the buses shall be seized. This petition stands disposed off accordingly."
Case Title: Nisha v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 95
The Rajasthan High Court, while observing that ShootingBall Federation of India's circuitous affiliation with the Indian Olympic Association through Rajasthan State Olympic Association cannot be recognized, upheld the rejection of petitioner's candidature under Outstanding Sports Person category for appointment for the post of Compounder.
Justice Arun Bhansali, while dismissing the petition, opined that there is no substance in the writ petition and thereby, ruled, "Admittedly, ShootingBall Federation of India is not affiliated to Indian Olympic Association and therefore, it can not be said that the respondents committed any fault in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner as a Outstanding Sports Person. The plea raised, that as the Association is affiliated with the Rajasthan State Olympic Association, which in turn is affiliated to the Indian Olympic Association and therefore, the condition is fulfilled, has been noticed for rejection only, as the stipulation requires direct affiliation and not via/through some other Olympic Association."
Case Title: Chandrakant Jain v. Veermati Jain
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 96
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the husband, who admittedly earns Rs.40,000/- per month, cannot be absolved of his obligation to pay interim maintenance, merely because the wife has chosen to file the application after 36 years of marriage.
Essentially, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order passed by Gram Nyayalay, Aspur, District Dungarpur ("Trial Court"), whereby the Trial Court had partly allowed the application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent-wife. The Trial Court had directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance.
As per the petitioner, the couple got married on 17.02.1976 and have been living separately since 1986.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, while dismissing the petition, opined, "In the opinion of this Court, an order under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is in the nature of interim maintenance and husband, who admittedly earns Rs.40,000/- per month cannot be absolved of his obligation to pay interim maintenance, merely because the respondent – wife has chosen to file the application after 36 years of marriage."
Case Title: Ajit Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 97
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the recommendation of the respondent-state, which rejected a rape convict's application for being sent to Open Air Camp.
The Superintendent of Jail had not recommended the case of the petitioner for being sent to the Open Air Camp as he was of young age and that other convicts are residing in the Camp with their wives and daughters. The Committee also recommended that the convict is not liable to be sent to the Open Air Camp as he is convicted under Section 376 of IPC for which life imprisonment has been awarded to him.
A division bench of Justice Rekha Borana and Justice Sandeep Mehta, opined, "We are of the firm opinion that this observation made by the Committee in the adverse recommendations is absolutely extraneous and unwarranted. Merely because the convict is of young age and other ladies/ girls are living in the Camp, that by itself would not imply that the accused would misbehave with them."
Case Title: Anju Boyal v. Ravindra Kuma
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 98
The Rajasthan High Court, while allowing a transfer petition, observed that petitioner being a working woman has multiple duties to perform and will face difficulties to travel a long distance with her minor children. The court ordered that the Civil Original Case No. 73/2020 pending before Additional District Judge – Family Court, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu be transferred to the Family Court, Bhilwara.
Case Title: Mahesh Swami v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 99
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking directions to the respondents-state to not deploy teachers as Booth Level Officer ('BLO') in view of the provisions of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
The court observed that it is always open for teachers to approach the concerned authority in any given case of personal difficulties. The court opined that it is expected of the concerned authority to look into the grievance raised and in case, found justified to redress the same appropriately.
Justice Arun Bhansali, while observing that the plea raised in the petitions has no substance, ruled,
"However, insofar as, the personal difficulties to a teacher in a given case are concerned, it is always open for them to approach the concerned authority in this regard and it is expected of the concerned authority to look into the grievance raised and in case, found justified to redress the same appropriately. With the above observations, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petitions. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed."
Case Title: Sita Devi Educational Society, Bhilwara & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 100
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the penalty clause in the Private Colleges Policy issued by the Commissioner, College Education, for different years in question, is beyond his power and illegal.
The court considered these matters on the point of competence of the Commissioner, College Education for issuance of policy and more particularly qua the powers of imposing penalty under the same and whether the same is legal, jurisdictionally valid and permissible under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 or not.
Justice Sameer Jain, disposed of the writ petitioners in terms of the following directions and observations:
(1) The penalty clause in the policy/instructions for Private Colleges issued by the Commissioner, College Education, for different years in question, is held to be beyond his power and is declared illegal.
(2) The penalty deposited by the respective petitioner/college under the orders of the Court or in the light of the provisions of the Private Colleges Policy be refunded to the petitioners/colleges within a period of sixty days failing which interest @ 6% will accrue on the same after lapse of 60 days."
(3) Amount refunded by the respondents shall be deposited by the respective petitioners/colleges in the "Student Welfare Fund", and be used for the welfare and betterment of students in activities like clearing dues of students who are unable to deposit fee, medical care, library, and other amenities and facilities needed for and by the students and not be used for any other purpose.
(4) The State as well as respondents are directed to ensure that on account of present dispute, students should not be made to suffer and their results, mark-sheets, admit cards, other documents should not be withheld and be declared/released in capacity of regular students forthwith immediately, without any fail. The respondents are directed to assist and help the students in question on 24×7 basis. No student should be deprived of appearance in any future examination or appearance on account of present dispute as the petitioners have submitted that the nondeclaration of result is causing prejudice to the students for appearing in future examinations including competitive examinations.
Case Title: Rajasthan Housing Board through Dy. Housing Commissioner & Resident Engineer v. Legal Representatives of deceased plaintiff Mani Ram
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 101
The Rajasthan High Court observed that well reasoned concurrent findings and reasons recorded by the prescribed authorities under the statute or by the appellate authority thereunder would not warrant any interference unless there is any illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction.
Justice Vinit Mathur, while observing that there is no force in the instant writ petition, ordered,
"In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three courts below does not suffer from any infirmity as the same has been recorded after correct appreciation of evidence on record. There is no jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the courts below which warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. There is no force in these writ petitions. The same are, therefore, dismissed."
Case Title: Jaipur Texweaving Park Ltd. v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 102
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition with a cost of Rs. 2 lac on account of misrepresentation, not impleading the consortium banks as necessary parties and praying for relief against them in their absence, not availing the alternative remedy and keeping the Court in dark by getting ex-parte stay during the course of advocates' strike.
Justice Sameer Jain noted that the petitioner has given an impression that its several members have paid their entire dues and in parallel are defending the matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whereby they were successful in avoiding payment of due of Rs.20 crores and interest thereon.
Essentially, the writ petition has been filed challenging respondent(s)' action of issuing notices to petitioner under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The plea sought for declaring the entire act of the respondents under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to be illegal, perverse and unconstitutional and for directing the respondents No. 1 & 5 to intervene in the matter or in the alternate for appointment of Court Commissioner for demarcating the arrears and liabilities in question in between the members.
Case Title: Prem v. Amar Jeet Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 103
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the claimants cannot be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes i.e. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It was added that the claimant has to choose one forum only and after choosing a forum, he cannot be allowed to choose another forum to get more benefits.
In this appeal, the court dealt with the issue 'Whether the claimants-appellants can file two parallel claim petitions for getting compensation under section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988')?'
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, ordered,
"In view of the settled position of law, it is clear that the claimants cannot be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes i.e. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The claimant has to choose one forum only and after choosing a forum, he cannot be allowed to choose another forum to get more benefits. The claimants cannot claim double benefit under both the enactments."
Case Title: Ramratan Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 104
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court directed UIDAI officials to expedite the process of providing the Aadhar details of the suspect and a minor child to the Investigating Officer.
The court further directed that the aforesaid details shall be shared within seven days.
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed,
"We, therefore, direct that the UIDAI officials shall expedite the process of providing the Aadhar details of the suspect and the corpus to the Investigating Officer and same shall be shared latest within seven days from today. "
Case Title: Smt Meena v. State, Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 105
The Rajasthan High Court observed that Section 459 of Indian Penal Code would apply if a trespasser causes grievous hurt or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt in the course of the trespass i.e. whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while allowing the petition, modified the trial court's order (for the offence U/s 458, 323, 324, 325, 307/34) to the extent of framing of charges under Section 459 IPC in place of Section 458 IPC and thereby, observed,
"In this case, the accused-respondents illegal and forcibly entered the house of the complainant/petitioner, armed with lathis, sariyas and swords during night hours at about 10:15 p.m. on 31.09.2016, and inflicted grievous injuries upon the son and husband of the complainant/petitioner, while remaining in her house premises. The same constitutes house breaking, and the grievous hurt is not disputed, and thus, the applicability of Section 459 IPC is made out."
Case Title: Salman Khan v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 106
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed Salman Khan's transfer petition in the deer hunting case. The petitioner prayed for transfer of the criminal appeals and Arms Act appeal from the Sessions Court, primarily on the ground that they arose from the same judgment and set of facts and evidence, involving several common witnesses and overlapping allegations as in the Leave to appeal filed by the state in the High Court.
The transfer petition was filed under Sections 402 and 407 of The Criminal Procedure Code, and Rule 113 of The Rajasthan High Court Rules.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, observed,
"Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, and accordingly, it is directed that criminal appeal No.18/2018 filed by complainant Punamchand relating to alleged offence under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Criminal Appeal No.22/2017 relating to alleged offence under Arms Act, 1956, both pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District shall be transferred to this Hon'ble High Court, to be heard alongwith the Criminal Leave to Appeal No.311/2018 (State of Raj. Vs. Saif Ali Khan & Ors.)."
Case Title: Rahul Katara v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 107
The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to judicial officer Jitendra Singh Guliya and two judicial clerks. All the three accused are in custody for the offences punishable under section 377/34 of I.P.C. and 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act.
Last year, the Rajasthan High Court suspended Jitendra Singh Guliya, with immediate effect pending preliminary enquiry and contemplated departmental enquiry. An order to this effect was issued by the High Court's Registrar General, under the direction of the Chief Justice of the High Court. He was posted as Special Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bharatpur.
Justice Farjand Ali, while granting bail to the accused persons, observed,
"All the accused persons are government servants out of which one is a Judicial officer and if the pre-conviction detention does not lead to conviction then compensation for such detention whereby tarnishing the reputation of an individual holding a Judicial post will never be compensated. Thus, the detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive; and for the reasons as noted above this court is of the considered view that since the accused is languishing in judicial custody, his further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose."
Case Title: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director & Ors. v. Udai Singh Kumawat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 108
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the services of a regular appointed employee, though on probation, cannot be terminated without enquiry and without providing an opportunity of hearing and explaining the charges against him.
The court pursued that the fact finding of two courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out in such fact findings, so as to give rise to any question of law much less substantial question of law. In this regard, the court noted that the nature of termination in the present matter was stigmatic.
Previously, the court had framed the substantial question of law as "Whether, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff?".
Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,
"As far as nature of termination as simpliciter or stigmatic is concerned, both Courts have concurrently held on the strength of oral or documentary evidence that the termination was stigmatic. The services of regular appointed employee, though on probation, cannot be terminated without enquiry and without providing an opportunity of hearing and explain the charges against him. The fact finding of two courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out in such fact findings, so as to give rise any question of law much less substantial question of law."
Case Title: Nand Kishore & Anr. v. Saleem Khan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 109
The Rajasthan High Court, while allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC observed that no additional evidence is required to be recorded to prove the additional documents, when the same are certified copies of the judgments passed by Judicial Courts.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, opined,
"In the opinion of this court, copies of judgment dated 04.09.2006 and order dated 23.07.2012, have material bearing on issues involved in the present appeal. No additional evidence is required to be recorded to prove the additional documents, as the same are certified copies of the judgments passed by Judicial Courts. Thus, in the interest of justice, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed."
Case Title: Ratan Devi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 110
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the decision of state government discontinuing water facilities through siphons is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners, who used the supply for irrigating their fields since last 35 years.
The court opined that the impugned orders are having civil and evil consequences, and are therefore not sustainable in the eye of the law.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, while allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the impugned orders, observed,
"In the considered opinion of this court, the action taken by the respondents authorities is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded before passing the orders which are having civil and evil consequences, and, therefore, the orders are not sustainable in the eye of the law."
Case Title: T.C. Gupta v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 111
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur order imposing 1 Lac cost on petitioner-advocate.
The court observed that the petitioner-advocate, who in more than one matters, has indulged in filing Original Applications in the Tribunal as well as writ petitions in the High Court and has personally signed the pleadings etc. without having been specifically authorised in this regard by the litigants.
It was opined by the court that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner, who has been enrolled as an Advocate post retirement from the Income Tax Department, has acted as de facto party in Judicial proceedings cannot be faulted.
Case Title: Sohan Singh Rao Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 112
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has refused to grant bail to the director of a company who was allegedly involved in goods and service tax (GST) evasion worth Rs. 869 crores.
The court noted that the Supreme Court in its various decisions held that an economic offender should not be dealt with as a general offender because economic offenders run a parallel economy and they are a serious threat to the national economy.
The court relied on the decision of Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union of India in which the bail of Vinaykant Ameta was dismissed by the High Court and the Apex Court had granted the bail of Vinaykant Ameta on depositing Rs. 200 crores.
Case Title: Pacific Industries Ltd. Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 113
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has allowed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST in GSTR-3B Return as FORM GST ITC-02A was not available on the GSTN Portal at the time of its insertion.
The court observed that the department failed to acknowledge and transfer the input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 2,58,03,590 accruing to the petitioner pursuant to the registration of its new business unit in accordance with Rule 41A of the GST Rules. The action of the department was grossly illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
"The respondents are directed to regularise the input tax credit in favour of the petitioner as per entitlement. The petitioner shall be allowed to avail the Input Tax Credit of Rs.2,58,03,590/- through the next GSTR-3B return," the court said.
Case Title: Lakshya Purohit v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 114
The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions for usage of A4 size papers for judicial filings and other court proceedings.
The division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta took note of the decision taken on High Court's administrative side that the present regime may continue and no change is needed.
Presently, the High Court follows General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018 which provides that all pleadings, applications, petitions and any other relevant paper of whatsoever nature filed in the course of judicial proceedings shall be printed in double space on stout durable papers of "foolscap size".
The petitioners, two law students, namely Lakshya Purohit and Akriti Agarwal, had sought usage of A4 size paper instead, stating that the same will prevent wastage of paper and help save the environment.