Nominal Index 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)...
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/ Orders of the Week
Case Title: Pratap Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 115
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to hear a public interest litigation against alleged illegal religious conversions and erection of unauthorized religious structures in the Ganganagr city, stating that it cannot decide disputed questions of facts in writ jurisdiction.
The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani however granted liberty to the Petitioners to raise their grievance before the competent authorities. It said,
" It is expected that such representation shall be considered objectively and decided as per law by a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of submission thereof."
2. Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail Granted To Mastermind Of Psychotropic Drugs Case- Anand Singh
Case Title: Suo Moto, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench v. Anand Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 116
The Rajasthan High Court recently cancelled the bail granted to the mastermind of psychotropic drugs case Anand Singh. The court also dismissed the bail applications of other three accused, namely, Anil Chaukdiwal, Deepak Chaukdiwal and Bhagwan Sain.
Justice Pankaj Bhandari, while allowing the suo moto bail cancellation application. observed,
"The involvement of accused respondent - Anand Singh is writ large from the very fact that relevant photos and WhatsApp chats were found in the mobile phone of respondent accused-Anand Singh, which clearly show that he was receiving order online for these psychotropic substance and same were exported to USA. Further, from the chargesheet, it is also revealed that Anand Singh was the mastermind, who was running the Drug Syndicate."
The court opined that Anand Singh's presence is shown during the search of premises in Khatipura from where recovery of contraband of commercial quantity was made. The court observed that there is also evidence that payments for the psychotropic substance were received in the account of Anand Singh. The court also observed that he accepted in his statement that he was receiving the payment of these drugs in cash or in his account. The court directed that he should be taken in custody forthwith.
Case Title: Laxman v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 117
The Rajasthan High Court has held given the "unequal bargaining power" between an employer and its workmen under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the settlement arrived at between them must be sent to the State Government, Labour Commissioner and the conciliation officer concerned for scrutiny.
It further observed that in absence of compliance of this condition, the settlement cannot be said to be binding on the parties in terms of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice Arun Bhansali, while allowing the petition, observed,
"The provisions are not without reason, inasmuch as on account of unequal bargaining power between the workmen and the management, in case a mutual settlement is arrived at the same becomes binding under the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the Act and, therefore, to ensure that the agreement arrived at is examined by the authority i.e. the Labour Commissioner and the conciliation officer, the same is required to be sent to them and entered in the register of settlement maintained by the conciliation officer."
Case Title: State, Through PP v. Atmaram & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 118
The Rajasthan High Court has commuted death penalty of four convicts accused of killing four persons and a minor over a land dispute.
The court ordered that the capital punishment awarded to the accused appellants by the trial court is commuted to life imprisonment, which shall enure till the natural life of the accused appellants without any possibility of permanent parole/premature release.
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while partly allowing the appeal, observed,
"However, the conduct of the accused, who attacked the entire family of Mr. Moman Ram with clear intention of eliminating them owing to the long-standing land dispute requires appropriate directions on the aspect of sentence of imprisonment. If the accused are permitted to roam at large without suffering the "imprisonment for life" in its literal meaning, they would in all likelihood eliminate the remaining family members as well if set at liberty. Hence, the capital punishment awarded to the accused appellants by the trial court is commuted to life imprisonment, which shall enure till the natural life of the accused appellants without any possibility of permanent parole/premature release."
Case Title: Anshul Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 119
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur recently allowed the plea filed by the petitioner claiming his eligibility in the category of Persons with Disability (PwD), as per the result of NEET UG-2021 examination and participation in the counselling, for the purpose of admission.
The court opined that the present case is a classic example of non application of mind by the Authorities, who deal with such an important issue of granting disability certificates. The belief of the court is forfeited from the fact that direction which was given by this court for medical examination of the petitioner for the second time also, resulted into issuing the certificate without adhering to the norms, which have been prescribed for considering the eligibility of a candidate, added the court.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, observed,
"Since, this Court intends to allow the writ petition, the petitioner will now be entitled to participate in the Mop-up round of counselling or any subsequent counselling, to be conducted by the respondents and his result will be accordingly declared by the Authorities and will be granted admission if falls in merit."
6. Rajasthan HC Dismisses PIL Against Solar Plant With 50k Cost; Quotes PM Modi, Obama, Etc.
Case Title: Jal Grahan Vikas Sanstha, Riwadi, District Jaisalmer Through Its President Mathar Khan v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 120
The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed public interest litigations opposing the allotment of the land made to the respondent-company for establishing the solar power plant in Riwadi.
The court noted quotes of world leaders, scientists and environmentalists on the aspects of climate change and its impact which, by use of renewable energy, can help in reversing the process of global warming which has started having a serious adverse impact on the world at large.
In this regard, the division bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani quoted Hon'ble Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi,
"Solar Energy is 'Sure', 'Pure' and "Secure'."
"India plans to produce 450 GWS of power through solar energy and other renewable energy sources by 2030"
Case Title: Mohammed Amin Through His Son:Zulkafil Amin Ansari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 121
The Rajasthan High Court has recently granted parole to an 80 years old accused convicted under TADA who remained in custody for more than 27 years.
The petitioner had preferred a writ petition (parole) for grant of emergency parole on the ground of his medical condition. It was contended that he was suffering from "DM, CAD (Coronary Artery Disease), BPH (Benign Prosthetic Hyperplasia)".
Justice Birendra Kumar and Justice Pankaj Bhandari, observed,
"Consequently, the writ petition (parole) stands allowed. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on parole for àperiod of 30 days, on furnishing of his personal bonds of RS.50,000/- with one surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the Jail Authorities with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself before the Jail Authority on expiry of 30 days from the date of release and shall maintain peace and tranquility during parole period."
Case Title: Nand Lal Through His Wife Rekha v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 122
In a significant judgment, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur observed that denial to the convict-prisoner to perform conjugal relationship with his wife more particularly for the purpose of progeny would adversely affect the rights of his wife. In this regard, the court granted 15 days parole to the life convict.
The bench opined that Hindu philosophy also advocates the importance of pitra – rin, i.e. parental debt. Our lives are the consequence of the fact that ancestors have been carrying and forwarding the said pitra rin, it is because of this, life came to us and in order to maintain the continuity of life, we must pay off this debt, added the the court.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Farjand Ali, while allowing the petition, observed,
"As an upshot of the observations made herein above, we are of the considered view that though there is no express provision in the Rajasthan Prisoners Release On Parole Rules, 2021 for releasing the prisoner on parole on the ground of his wife to have progeny; yet considering the religious philosophies, cultural, sociological and humanitarian aspects, coupled with the fundamental right guaranted by the Constitution of India and while exercising extra ordinary power vested in it, this Court deem it just and proper to allow the instant writ petition."
9. Rajsathan High Court Dismisses Challenge To Civil Judge Exam Preliminary Merit List
Case Title: Kavita Bhargava v. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 123
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur dismissed a batch of writ petitions questioning the correctness and validity of the merit list prepared after Preliminary Examination in the matter of selection to the post of Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre.
Essentially, the challenge has been regarding correctness and validity of deletion of four questions, rejection of representation for deleting more questions on various grounds and some other common grounds to the process of selection.
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the petitions and upholding the Expert Committee's recommendations, ordered,
"Having dealt with all the issues as raised in these petitions and relying upon dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions cited hereinabove which restrict the scope of judicial review and interference is warranted only in exceptional cases of the nature as stated and restated in various judicial pronouncements, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the body of experts as it was acted upon by the respondents. We have carefully examined the original records which contained deliberations of subject experts and discussions, as also the conclusion arrived at by the experts of the subjects in the Expert Committee.".
Case Title: Akheraj v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 124
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that the right to seek default/statutory bail accrues to the accused in the nature of an indefeasible right, only if such remedy by preferring an appropriate application has been availed of within the prescribed window from the date of expiry of total period of detention of accused person(s) under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., until filing of the charge-sheet.
The Court also held that if an additional or new offence(s) are found to be made out by the investigating authority, against an accused, then the computation of the period, as laid down under Section 167 Cr.P.C. would be done afresh.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed,
"This Court hereby observes that the right to seek default/statutory bail accrues to the accused in the nature of an indefeasible right, only if such remedy by preferring an appropriate application has been availed of within the prescribed window from the date of expiry of total period of detention of accused person(s) under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., until filing of the charge-sheet."
Case Title: Jagdish Prasad Meena v. The State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 125
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that in the absence of any statutory prohibitions, establishment of Toll Plaza could not be faulted only on the ground that the Toll Plaza is in the vicinity of adjoining villages and dhanis. In the absence of any statutory provisions, only on that ground, the location of Toll Plaza cannot be said to be illegal, added the court.
The court observed that the Toll Plaza, in the present case, is beyond the prohibited distance under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan State Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collections) Rules, 2015 and there being no violation of any statutory provisions governed, the establishment of Toll Plaza cannot be said to be in violation of law only on the ground of violation of the certain guidelines which are principle based..
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while dismissing the petition, observed,
"We therefore come to the conclusion that, on facts, compliance of IRC guidelines was not mandatory, therefore, the present case where the location of Toll Plaza is governed by statutory provisions contained in the statutory Rules of 2015 framed in exercise of statutory powers under the Act of 2014 will hold the field and in the absence of there being statutory provisions under the law regulating location of Toll Plaza, there being no condition incorporated either in the advertisement or in the terms and conditions of eligibility for erection of Toll Plaza or in the concession agreement between government and the concessionaire, establishment of Toll Plaza cannot be said to be illegal or opposed to law."
Case Title: Suresh Sharma & Anr. v. Dhanwanti Sharma
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 126
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the land where Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was manuscripted, which considers the whole world a single family, the ill- treatment meted out to parents by their own children is both alarming and disturbing. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was formulated to redress the said grievance in a simple, inexpensive and speedy manner qua maintenance of the parents and senior citizens, added the court.
Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the petition filed by son and his wife, ruled,
"Therefore, the petitioners along with their family are directed to honor the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 and vacate the premises within a period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment on their own cost and restore the house in vacant manner and in appropriate condition to the respondent-mother with due respect. The SHO of the concerned Police Station may be provided a copy of this judgment by the Registrar (Judicial) for carrying out the directions, within the stipulated time, giving full security to the respondent. The respondent will be at liberty to permit the petitioner and his family to visit or live in the disputed property in future, if she so chooses."
Case Title: Avadesh Kumar Purohit v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 127
The Rajasthan High Court has recently disposed of the Advocate's missing daughters case, after the daughters were produced before the court. The court observed that it is expected from the petitioner-father to comply with the wishes of his daughters and take them to Lucknow.
The court was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Jaipur-based Advocate Avdesh Kumar Purohit, whose two minor daughters were missing from Lai C. M. Senior Secondary School, Kartarpura, Jaipur since Feb 3, 2022. An FIR was also lodged on the same day.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Birendra Kumar, observed,
"Petitioner who is present in person in the Court has agreed to help his daughters in fulfilling their dreams and has agreed to take them to Lucknow on 07.04.2022. It is expected from the petitioner that he would comply with the wishes of his daughters and take them to Lucknow on 07.04.2022."
Case Name: Trehan Apna Ghar Buildwell Private Limited through its Director/Authorised Signatory v. Munish Ranjan Sahay
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 128
The Rajasthan High Court observed that where there is no specific provision available for payment of Court fees on appeals filed under Section 58 of the RERA Act, 2016 before the High Court, as a general principle of law, the Court fees of Rs.5000/- as required to be paid before the Appellate Tribunal under Rule 37 of the RERA Rules, 2017, be paid on appeal before the High Court.
Justice Sudesh Bansal directed the Registry to register these appeals in the manner as mentioned hereinabove and make a report about the payment of Court fees accordingly. The court also directed to circulate this order to the Stamp Reporters to follow the same for registering the appeals filed under Section 58 of RERA Act, 2016 in future before the Rajasthan High Court.
Case Title: Master Arjun Choudhary Through His Father Mr. Bhanwar Lal v. Chairman, Army Public School, Jodhpur & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 129
The Rajasthan High Court has opined that no counsel can insist a Judge to recuse from hearing a case, even if during the course of hearing, the court has commented on the merits of the case, which in the counsel's opinion are not favourable.
The remarks were made by Justice Vijay Bishnoi after a counsel, appearing for the petitioner in the matter, insisted that the case be transferred to another Bench.
The court opined that the conduct of the counsel, who sought the Judge's recusal and kept interrupting to prevent it from passing the order, is "highly objectionable and contemptuous".
Case Title: Deepak Kumar Gupta & Ors. .v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 130
The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed the writ petitions filed by persons who were appointed under Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana National Urban Livelihood Mission, claiming themselves to be the employees of the State Government and seeking regularisation, regular pay-scale, and salary directly from the State Government and not from the placement agency.
Justice Inderjeet Singh dismissed the writ petitions on the following grounds:
"Firstly, the petitioners have failed to establish their relationship of employee and employer with the respondent-State and only narration in the petition cannot be considered to be a justifiable ground to grant the relief prayed for, unless it is supported by cogent evidence on record as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh (supra); secondly, as per own version of the petitioners, they were appointment by the placement agency but failed to implead the placement agency as party respondent in the writ petitions; thirdly, the salary/ remuneration was also paid to the petitioners by the placement agency and not by the State Government; and lastly claim of the petitioners for regularisation in the State cannot be approved by this court as the petitioners were never appointed by the State Government against sanctioned post on regular basis, rather, as already observed above they were appointed by the placement agency."
Case Title: Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 131
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed praying that notification dated 22.01.2018 be declared ultra vires as direction is confined to deregistration of the diesel vehicles only, which are 10 years more and upto 15 years and not for petrol vehicles.
The public interest litigation was filed by one Bhanu Pratap Singh.
The court observed that the petition is devoid of any merit. The court added that no material has been placed on record as to on what basis the petitioner claims that the diesel vehicle and petrol vehicle both have similar combustion value and degree of pollution with the same age.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the petition, observed,
"This petition is devoid of any merit. No material has been placed on record as to on what basis the petitioner claims that the diesel vehicle and petrol vehicle both have similar combustion value and degree of pollution with the same age."
Case Title: Kamalkant & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 132
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the right to carry on mining operations is not a vested right of any citizen. The court added that the State Government has absolute dominion to decide as to the areas and manner in which the mining permits will be granted.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Farjand Ali, observed,
"At the outset, we may note that the right to carry on mining operations is not a vested right of any citizen. The State Government has absolute dominion to decide as to the areas and manner in which the mining permits will be granted."
Case Title: Shri Mandar Jain Sangh, Mandar, Through Its Trustee Bhanwarlal Doshi v. Gram Panchayat, Mandar, Through Its Sarpanch, TehsilReodar, District Sirohi & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 133
The Rajasthan High Court observed that Panchayat has no authority to decide the question of the revenue entries as the same lies in the domain of the revenue authority of the State of Rajasthan.
Justice Vineet Kumar Mathur, observed,
"Thus, the revenue entries in the name of petitioner as stand today creates no doubt with respect to the title of the land in question. It is also noted that the Panchayat has no authority to decide the question of the revenue entries as the same lies in the domain of the revenue authority of the State of Rajasthan."
Essentially, the Gram Panchayat, Mandar passed an interim order refusing to grant permission for raising construction of a building. The interim order was passed in the application preferred by the petitioner being the Khatedar owners of the land located in Gram Mandar. It was stated in the interim order that the petitioner may submit the documents to show how the land was converted from "Mafi Dharmada Po Bharayi Panch Mahajan Khatedar" to "Panch Mahajanan Khatedar".
Case Title: Girdhari Singh Through His Father Kishor Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 134
The Rajasthan High Court has asked the State's Home Secretary to issue pertinent instructions to the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of jails across the State to ensure that the emergent parole applications submitted by the convicts are not kept pending and are decided immediately on receipt thereof.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani observed,
"The Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan shall issue pertinent instructions to the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of jails across the State of Rajasthan to ensure that the emergent parole applications submitted by the convicts are not kept pending and are decided immediately on receipt thereof in terms of the Rule 23 of the Rules of 2021."
Case Title: Haider Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 135
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to Union government to conduct the Census in scheduled timeline, without any further delay and also to declare "wherever it may consider it necessary or desirable to do so" in the Section 3 of the Census Act, 1948 as ultra vires.
Section 3 of Census Act, 1948 states that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention of taking a Census in the whole or any part of the territories to which this Act extends, whenever it may consider it necessary or desirable so to do and thereupon the Census shall be taken.
22. Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Exempt Assessee From Personal Appearance Under GST
Case Title: Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 136
The Rajasthan High Court consisting of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain has refused to exempt the assessee from personal appearance under Section 70 of the CGST Act.
The petitioner/assessee sought the direction of exemption from personal appearance pursuant to summons issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 issued by Respondent/department.
The assessee has sought its representation through an authorised representative is required to be duly considered by the respondents.
The assessee submitted that unless it is absolutely imperative, it is not necessary that in all cases, the petitioner should be insisted for personal appearance and he may be allowed to appear through representative also replying to various queries.
23. Rajasthan High Court Grants 15 Days' Temporary Bail To Convict To Perform Daughter's Kanyadan
Case Title: Ratna v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 137
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has granted temporary bail for 15 days to a man to perform 'Kanyadan' & other ceremonies in his daughter's marriage.
Notably, the present application for grant of temporary bail has been filed on the ground that the appellant's daughter is getting married on 28.04.2022 and the presence of the appellant is necessary to perform 'Kanyadan' and other ceremonies in the marriage.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, ruled,
"Taking into consideration the ground, on which the temporary bail is sought, we are inclined to allow the application to the extent that the appellant shall be released on temporary bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The appellant shall be released on temporary bail for a period of 15 days from the date of release."
Case Title: Kalu Ram Jangid v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 138
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the petitioner is a married brother of the deceased government servant, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be a dependant and to be entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.
Justice Rekha Borana, while dismissing the writ petition, opined,
"Admittedly, the petitioner is married and therefore, in terms of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner cannot be held to be a dependant and to be entitled for compassionate appointment. In view of the specific provisions of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 01.01.2019."
Case Title: M/s.Mangalam Arts through its partner Sh.Rajendra Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 139
The Rajasthan High Court observed that merely depositing an amount unilaterally by the petitioner-firm, in absence of any allotment letter, would not create any right to claim allotment of land in its favour.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, while dismissing the writ petition, ruled,
"This Court finds that merely by depositing amount unilaterally by the petitioner-firm, in absence of any allotment letter, would not create any right to claim allotment in its favour."
The court observed that the allotment of industrial plots on "first come first serve" basis is not approved in the interest of the respondent-Corporation and as such, the decision cannot be termed arbitrary.
26. Power Of Revision At The State Of Framing Of Charges Is Very Limited: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Sudhir Bordiya v. State, Through Pp
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 140
The Rajasthan High Court observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of interference of the High Court, as a revisional Court is very limited, so much so that the Court must be concerned only with the question whether there is any suspicion against the accused, and not with the proof of the allegation(s).
The court opined that if a strong suspicion exists in the mind of the court at the stage concerned, then the same is sufficient for the court to proceed with the framing of the charge against the accused person(s). And if a prayer for discharge has been made before a revisional court, then the same may only be allowed if the court finds that the materials on record are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial, added the court.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while dismissing the writ petition and refusing to interfere with the decision of trial court, ruled,
"This Court, therefore, finds that the judicial precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is clear, and that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of interference of the Hon'ble High Court, as a revisional Court is very limited, so much so that the Court must be concerned only with the question whether there is any suspicion against the accused, and not with the proof of the allegation(s). And, as an exception to this, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335"
27. Coins Worth ₹11 Crore Missing From SBI Branch: Rajasthan High Court Transfers Investigation To CBI
Case Title: State Bank Of India v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 141
In a case of 'missing' coins worth Rs. 11 crore from the Mehandipur Balaji branch of State Bank of India (SBI), the Central Bureau has reportedly filed an FIR. The FIR was filed pursuant to the order issued by the Rajasthan High Court whereby, on March 4, 2022, the court had transferred the investigation of the matter to the agency.
As per the reports, an FIR filed by the bank in August 2021 reported a discrepancy in the total value of coins deposited in the bank, and those that were found to be there in an audit conducted by the bank. It was further stated in the FIR that the vendor told the bank that while the audit was underway, one of his employees, who was involved in counting of coins, allegedly had his life threatened by a group of 10-15 armed men.
Notably, the State Bank of India, by way of a criminal writ petition, had approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking direction to the CBI to take over the investigation of the FIR filed in August last year at Police Station Todabhim. It also sought direction to the respondents to pursue the FIR for offence of threat given to the vendor.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 142
The Rajasthan High Court observed that medical evidence cannot be doubted, that too, at the stage of framing of charges, where as per the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court, the possibility of acquittal of the accused person are not to be taken into consideration, rather it is to be seen whether prima facie case is made out or not.
The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order passed by trial court, framing charges against the present accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 308, 447, 427, 341, 323 & 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
Dr, Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, ruled,
"Such medical evidence cannot be doubted, that too, at the stage of framing of charges, where as per the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the possibility of acquittal of the accused person are not to be taken into consideration, rather it is to be seen whether prima facie case is made out or not; the impugned order passed by the learned trial court clearly reveals that the said proposition, amongst others, has been kept into consideration by the learned trial court, and rightly so."
Case Title: Prahlad v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 143
The Rajasthan High Court observed that merely because the courts were closed for Holi Holidays, the prosecution cannot get the benefit of filing the charge-sheet after expiry of the period of 60 days or the stipulated period of time mandated by law.
The court noted that it is a settled proposition of law that if the contraband recovered is below commercial quantity, the charge-sheet is required to be filed within a period of 60 days and the period of 60 days, in no circumstance, can get enlarged.
Essentially, the petitioner was arrested on 17.01.2022 and the 60 days' period came to an end on 19.03.2022 whereas the charge-sheet was filed on 21.03.2022.
Case Title: Raman v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 144
The Rajasthan High Court observed that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case of murder, where ocular testimony is convincing, there is no requirement for the prosecution to seek corroboration in the form of motive and recovery.
In the present matter, an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking suspension of sentence awarded by the trial court, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment under Sections 302 (Murder) and 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt) IPC. The appellant urged that he has strong case for assailing the impugned judgment and hence, he deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while dismissing the petition as it being devoid of merit,
"We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We may state that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case of murder, where ocular testimony is convincing, there is no requirement for the prosecution to seek corroboration in the form of motive and recovery."
31. Rajasthan High Court Directs GST Dept. To Reimburse The Pre Deposit In View Of CIRP Of Binani Cement
Case Title: M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 145
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta has directed the GST department to reimburse amounts deposited by Binani Cement as a mandatory statutory obligation to the Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement.
The petitioner, UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd., has taken over Binani Cement. The petitioner has filed a revision petition assailing the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, rejecting the applications for a refund of the mandatory statutory obligation pre-deposit with interest made with appeals filed before the Tax Board.
The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department issued VAT assessment orders fixing the liability of Binani Cement Limited for different periods ranging from 2005-06 to 2015-16 and also imposed upon it additional tax and interest. These orders were carried by Binani Cement Limited in an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Jodhpur, who dismissed it by separate orders. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the assessing authority and the appellate authority, Binani Cement Limited preferred appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer.
Case Title: Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Versus UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 146
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has restrained the GST department from recovering GST on royalty paid on account of the excavation of sand for brick.
The petitioner/assessee has filed the writ petition challenging the demand GST on the royalty paid on account of excavation of sand for brick.
The petitioner has submitted that, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cement Ltd. Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the royalty is separate and distinct from the land revenue and it is not related to the land as a unit. As such, no tax is to be paid upon the royalty.
Case Title: Neeraj Jain v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 147
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the action of the State Government in just directing the Special Public Prosecutor to appear in the case after taking the files from Additional Public Prosecutor, does not appear to be just, proper and correct. More particularly, when the order of appointment of Additional Public Prosecutor has not been revoked, added the court.
The court noted that the State Government after having taken into consideration the special circumstances of the present case, had appointed Shri Shreejee Bhavsar to appear as Special Public Prosecutor in the case vide order dated 28.03.2018. The court added that while this order is still in force, a direction has been issued to transfer the files of this case to Shri Prem Singh Panwar who is regularly appointed Additional Public Prosecutor in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, while allowing the writ petition, observed,
"The action of the State Government in just directing the Special Public Prosecutor to appear in the case after taking the files from Shri Shreejee Bhavsar, does not appear to be just, proper and correct. More particularly, when the order of appointment of Shri Shreejee Bhavsar dated 28.03.2018 has not been revoked."
Case Title: Manisha Khator v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 148
The Rajasthan High Court disposed of a plea filed by a postgraduate woman raising grievance that she wants to pursue her studies, whereas she is being harassed by the police as her father has lodged a missing person report.
Being a resident of Ganganagar, the petitioner is presently residing as a paying guest at Jodhpur and wants to continue her study. In this regard, she prayed for adequate police protection from her parents.
The court opined that there is no specific instance or imminent threat to the petitioner and if the petitioner is having any apprehension or threat perception about her life and liberty from her parents, she may move appropriate representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (East) indicating her concern
Justice Dinesh Mehta, while disposing of the criminal miscellaneous petition, observed,
"Though no specific instance or imminent threat has been pleaded but considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is having any apprehension or threat perception about her life and liberty from her parents, she may move appropriate representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (East) indicating her concern."
Case Title: Doli Mandir Sri Mahadev Ji (Pahadeshwar Mahadev), Ludrada Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer Through Its Devotee Shri Vikram Singh v. District Collector, Barmer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 149
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Sub Division Officer concerned in the area to look into a representation to be made before it against alleged encroachment, unauthorized constructions demolition of structures at the Pahadeshwar Mahadev Temple in Barmer district.
The division bench comprising Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Saneep Mehta observed that the petitioner has been climbing up the wrong tree for ventilating his grievances by filing the representations to the Chief Minister and the Principal Secretary, Devasthan Department and thereby not addressing a dedicated representation to the Sub Division Officer (SDO) concerned.
The petitioner Vikram Singh claiming to be a devotee of Doli Mandir Sri Mahadev Ji (Pahadeshwar Mahadev) Ludrada, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer approached the court seeking direction to Datnarayan Giri Baba-respondent No.4 restraining him to raise any new construction in the temple premises and further restraining him to remove, demolish, destroy any existing construction of the temple premises including the historical entrance pole of the temple.
Case Title: Vishal Kochar v. Smt. Pulkit Sahni & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 150
The Rajasthan High Court observed that an order of interim maintenance passed under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C by any Family Court or Magistrate, during the pendency of the proceeding, remains effective up to the final order only and does not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties in finality.
In this regard, the court opined that the impugned order dated 27.01.2021, regarding interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is an interlocutory order, hence revision petitions being not maintainable, either under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
The court considered the question whether the order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order and consequently, whether criminal revision petition is maintainable against that order or not.
Justice Uma Shanker Vyas, ordered,
"23. An order of interim maintenance passed under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C by any Family Court or Magistrate, during the pendency of the proceeding, remains effective up to the final order only and does not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties in finality.
Case Title: Sunita Meena v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through its Registrar General & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 151
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a widow's challenge to the validity of the category-wise merit list prepared after preliminary examinations for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate in the Rajasthan Judicial Services.
The Petitioner was aggrieved over her non-inclusion by giving benefit of horizontal reservation as widow in ST category.
" Challenge to the reservation policy and prescription as provided under the advertisement cannot be permitted to be challenged at the instance of unsuccessful candidates after the candidate has been declared unsuccessful," division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain said while dismissing the petition as it being sans substratum.
Case Title: Sanjay Ghiya v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 152
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that Section 56 of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, inasmuch as it excludes Respondents' right to legal representation before the Appellate Tribunal or the Regulatory Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, is ultra vires.
Accordingly, it declared that the provision includes the word "Respondent", who would also be entitled to representation (like the applicant or appellant) to either appear in person or authorize one or more Chartered Accountants or Company Secretaries or Cost Accountants or Legal Practitioner or of its officer to present his or its case before the Appellate Tribunal or Regulatory Authority or the Adjudicating Officer, as the case may be.
The validity of Section 56 of the Act of 2016 was challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that it is hit by Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Section 56 gave right of legal representation only to the applicant/ appellant. However, no such right of representation has been given to the respondent against whom the proceedings have been initiated before the Appellate Tribunal or before the Regulatory Authority or the Adjudicating Officer.
Case Title: Anop Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 153
The Rajasthan High Court observed that Section 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 makes it abundantly clear that organising marriage is a sine qua non to constitute an offence under the Act. However, mere engagement of a child in any case does not amount to an offence under Section 11, added the court.
Section 11 of the Act provides punishment for promoting or permitting solemnisation of child marriages while Section 15 of the Act states that notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC), an offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
Justice Dinesh Mehta observed,
"A perusal of Section 11 of the Act of 2006, makes it abundantly clear that organising marriage is a sine qua non to constitute an offence under the Act of 2006. Engagement of a child in any case does not amount to an offence under Section 11 of the Act of 2006. Admittedly, on the fateful day of 25.02.2020, petitioner's son was getting engaged which cannot be confused with or construed to be a marriage, falling foul to the provisions of the Act of 2006."
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Asharam @ Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has asked the Public Prosecutor to file reply within two weeks in Asaram's third application for suspension of sentences in minor rape case.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, ordered,
"Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to file reply to this third application for suspension of sentences."
Earlier, on 21st May 2021, a Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kachhawaha of Rajasthan High Court, had directed the district and jail administration to ensure that Asaram is provided with proper treatment, a nutritious diet, and a safe environment looking at his old age and medical condition.
Advocate Darshan Ram, General Secretary of Rajasthan High Court Advocate's Association, Jodhpur has called for suspension of work in the Rajasthan High Court, District and Sessions Court, Jodhpur and other subordinate courts.
Further, the Election Officer Chandra Shekhar Kotwani of the Rajasthan High Court Lawyers' Association has also written a letter to the Registrar General of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. The letter states,
"It is to inform that Shri Sukhdev Vyas, Senior Advocate of our Bar in an unfortunate incident collapsed in the High Court premises and passed away. In this moment of grief, the entire members of the Bar as a mark of respect to departed soul will not work in the Court today."
A public interest litigation has been filed before the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court seeking directions to the respondent state to change the terminology like 'Baanjh', 'Parityakt', 'Nirashrit' used for the women in different schemes.
The present public interest litigation has been filed by Kunal Rawat.
The petitioner sought following reliefs from the court:
"I. Writ in nature of mandamus or any other direction instructing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint to change the terminology used for the women in different schemes of the Respondents.
II. And pass such other or order or orders as to Your Lordships may deem proper and fit. And your petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray."
Case Title: Girdhari Singh Versus State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court recently issued show cause notice to the Jail Superintendent and the District Collector in Bikaner, seeking their explanation over one month's delay in deciding the emergency parole application of a convict, whose mother had passed away.
The bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Rameshwar Vyas observed that Court has time and again directed the jail as well as parole authorities to remain vigilant while deciding the emergent parole applications and to ensure that orders are passed thereupon within 7 days of presentation.
Further, under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, an application for emergent parole is required to be decided within 4 days of presentation.
In this backdrop, te Bench remarked,
" Apparently, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner as well as District Collector, Bikaner have acted in contempt of this Courts' directions as also in gross non-compliance of Rule 23 of the Rules of 2021. "
Case Title: M/s Utkarsh Classes v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has recently issued notice on a public interest litigation filed by Utkarsh Classes seeking disclosure of detailed syllabus and issuance of source of reference from which the question has been asked and the answer of the same has been relied upon in various recruitment examinations conducted by the state.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Rekha Borana, observed,
"Issue notice of writ petition, returnable within a period of four weeks and be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the petitioner for service."
Case Title: Ram Prakash Singh v. The Union Of India
The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice to Centre on a plea challenging the constitutionality of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 inasmuch as it does not provide benefit of reservation to the persons with disability of Haemophilia .
Haemophilia is a rare bleeding disorder caused by congenital deficiency of certain clotting factors.
The petitioner also sought direction to the respondent authorities to include persons with disability of Haemophilia under section 34 and provide reservation under every government establishment to them. Additionally, the petitioner sought direction to the respondents to give 'benefit of reservation' in employment to him as he is a Haemophilia disabled person with benchmark disability.
Section 34 of the Act provides that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment not less than 4 percent of the total number of vacancies filled with persons with benchmark disabilities, of which, 1 percent each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities of blindness and low vision; deaf and hard of hearing; locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; and 1 percent for persons with benchmark disabilities Autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; Multiple disabilities.
Case Title: Vishwas Khatri v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr
The Rajasthan High Court has granted protection from arrest and harassment in the name of interrogation to a man (petitioner) whose ex-partner filed an FIR against him, alleging sexual assault. The FIR was filed a day before the marriage of the petitioner with another girl.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed,
"Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 26th May, 2022. Meanwhile, neither the petitioner shall be arrested nor shall he be harassed in the name of interrogation."
Appearing for the petitioner, Sr. Adv. Ravi Bhansali pointed out that the petitioner and complainant were scheduled to marry on 18th July, 2021 which got postponed on account of the injury which the complainant had purportedly suffered whereafter, there arose some differences.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Pareek v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur on Wednesday withdrew the interim protection from arrest granted to Advocate Goverdhan Singh in case pertaining to misbehaviour with a female police officer, observing that the adjournment sought by the petitioner has apparently not been bona fide.
Notably, Singh had posted a video on social media alleging the involvement of Justice Dhaddha's Usher in taking bribe from an Advocate.
Appearing in person, Singh submitted that Justice Dhaddha's bench cannot hear since its Usher was involved in taking bribe. He also sought an adjournment from the court on the ground that a letter for transfer of these matters has been submitted before the before the Chief Justice and that the respondent/s have not filed reply till the date of hearing.
"I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent/s. Adjournment sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not seem to be bona fide, so interim protection given to the petitioner/s by this Court is withdrawn," the Judge ordered.
9. REET 2021 Paper Leak: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Stay Level-I Recruitments
Case Title: Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (Abvp) v. The State Of Rajasthan
In connection with the paper leak case of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher, 2021, the High Court has refused to stay the recruitment process with respect to Level-I examination. It however made it clear that the appointments, if any made, would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, observed,
"Though at this stage, a prayer is made that as far as a result of REET Level-I examination is concerned, respondents may be restrained from making appointments out of that select list, this aspect would be considered on the next date of hearing. However, considering that the action of the respondents in not cancelling the REET Level-I examination is under scrutiny by this Court, we would, at this stage, observe that appointments, if any made, would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition."
Case Title: Geetanjali Medical College And Hospital v. The Union Of India
Rajasthan High Court is set to determine whether the Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) can recommend for cancellation of admission of the students in various medical courses.
The question has arised in the background of several writ petitions filed by medical colleges and its students, challenging the recommendations made by MARB for withdrawal of letter of permission, cancellation of admission in under-graduate and post-graduate courses for the academic year 2021-22 in the petitioner-institutions.
Some of the writ petitions have been filed on behalf of the institutions, where admissions were granted to the students for the academic year 2021-22 in the under-graduate as well as postgraduate courses and some of the writ petitions have been preferred on behalf of the students, who have been admitted in these courses.
The Court has granted interim relief to the students who were already admitted to pursue their studies in the petitioner–institutions for the session 2021 and has further ordered that a copy of the writ petitions be supplied to counsel for the respondents within a period of one week.