Nominal IndexAkhil 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...
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/ Orders of the Week
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."
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."
3. Illegal Encroachment Of Kotputli Road: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Public Notices For Demolition
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."
7. Provisional Attachment under CGST Act Ceases After Expiry Of One Year: Rajasthan High Court
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.
The Central government has informed the Rajasthan High Court that its agencies are taking best possible steps to bring back the Indian citizens including students, stranded in Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia.
Additional Solicitor General RD Rastogi apprised the Court that the Indian government has launched operation "Ganga", whereby it is sending various flights through different countries to the capital of Ukraine i.e. Kyiv. The ASG added that the authorities are open to act upon the suggestions, if any.
The development ensued in a writ petition filed by two residents of Rajasthan's Baran district, seeking evacuation of their stranded children.
The Central Government has notified the appointment of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava as the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court (as per Article 223 of the Constitution of India) with effect from March 7.
Justice MM Shrivastava, the senior-most Judge of the Uttarakhand Pradesh High Court, will be performing the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of the High Court consequent upon the retirement of Justice Akil Abdulhamid Kureshi, Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court. Justice Kureshi is retiring on March 6, 2022.
Justice Akil Kureshi, the outgoing Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, made certain significant statements in his farewell speech on Saturday.
Justice Kureshi's non-elevation to the Supreme Court, despite being the senior most Chief Justice in the country, has become a point of discussion among the legal fraternity, amid the widespread perception that the Central Government is not in his favour due to certain orders passed by him against the ruling party during his stint as a judge of the Gujarat High Court.
In his farewell address, Justice Kureshi referred to some statements made by former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in his recently published autobiography.
"Recently, a former Chief Justice of India has written his autobiography. I haven't read it but going by media reports he has made some disclosures. Regarding changing my recommendation for Chief Justice of MP High Court to Chief Justice of Tripura High Court, it is stated that Government had some negative perceptions about me based on judicial opinions. As a judge of the Constitutional Court, whose most primary duty is to protect the fundamental and human rights of the citizens, I consider it a certificate of independence", Justice Kureshi said.