Nominal Index 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...
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Sudarshan Purohit v. The Hon'ble High Court For Judicature Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 154
The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday dismissed a review petition challenging the answer key of Preliminary Examination for selection to the post of Rajasthan Civil Judge.
The review petition was filed against the order dated 08.04.2022, whereby the division bench had dismissed a batch of writ petitions questioning the correctness and validity of the merit list prepared after Preliminary Examination in the matter .
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the review petition as it being 'misconceived', observed,
"The argument of learned counsel for the review petitioner is utterly misconceived in law. This Court on the factual premise that upon objection received on the correctness of the model answer key of question no.A-66/B-49/C-58/D-39, the expert body had considered objection and it opined that the question was with regard to the date on which the Act was published and therefore with reference to the question, the date of publication was relevant not the date on which it was brought into force and effect in exercise of powers under Section 1(1) of the Act."
Case Title: Bharat Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 155
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of Dr. Anulya Morya as Vice Chancellor of Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University.
The petitioner argued that Dr. Morya does not possess statutorily prescribed experience of teaching the post graduate classes for a period of ten years, and therefore, has illegally usurped the public office of Vice Chancellor.
In this regard, the petitioner placed reliance on UGC regulations called the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010) Regulations 2010 as also the Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University, Jaipur (Amendment Ordinance), Ordinance 2018.
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, ruled,
"This petition, if we may say so, not only lacks proper pleadings but also on the face of it is frivolous. Therefore, we are not inclined to issue notice in this petition and dismiss the same with the cost of Rs.25,000/-."
Case Title: Prem Chand Deshantri v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 156
"It cannot be assumed that a litigant would keep waiting for the adjudication of his disputes, if the competent Forum or the Authority is not functioning," the Rajasthan High Court observed recently.
The remarks were made by Justice Rekha Borana while hearing an application filed by the Centre seeking dismissal of a petition relating to recruitment in Civil Service, on the ground of alternate remedy. The petition was filed before the High Court due to admitted vacancy in Central Administrative Tribunal at the time.
The Bench, while dismissing the application filed by the respondents, observed,
"Therefore, any litigant cannot be left remediless. It cannot be assumed that a litigant would keep waiting for the adjudication of his disputes, if the competent Forum or the Authority is not functioning. It cannot also be the intention of the legislation to make a litigant suffer because of the inaction or lacuna on the part of the system. The fact of the CAT not functioning at the relevant time being not disputed, the dismissal of the writ petition at this stage i.e. after four years of filing of the same and being entertained by this Court, would not be in the interest of justice now only on the ground of alternative remedy."
Case Title: Mahendra Yadav & Anr. v. Bhagwan Devi & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 157
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that if any litigation, with passage of time or due to prolonged life of the litigation has lost its merits, the parties should be advised not to pursue such lumber litigation unwarrantedly on merits, taking immense judicial time of courts for no good results.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, while dismissing the first appeal as it being devoid of merits, observed,
"There is nothing wrong to have a legitimate expectation from the learned Members of the Bar to convince such type of litigants not to pursue the unwarranted litigation before any court of law. If any litigation, with passage of time or due to prolonged life of the litigation have lost its merits, the parties should be advised not to pursue such lumber litigation unwarrantedly on merits, taking immense judicial time of courts for no good results. Prestigious and valuable time of judicial courts should be utilized for deciding bonafide and legitimate disputes instead of deciding superfluous litigation like present one."
Case Title: Kumar Indu Bhushan v. Union Of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 158
The Rajasthan High Court recently affirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal that upheld compulsory retirement of an IPS officer and observed that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not require observation of principles of natural justice.
A division bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand and Justice Pankaj Bhandari observed:
"The order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor it attaches any stigma on an employee-petitioner. The subjective decision of the government in public interest arrived at after considering entire service record of the petitioner, where the principles of natural justice, are not required to be observed while passing the order of compulsory retirement because the order of compulsory retirement does not amount to a punishment."
6. Gold Smuggling Can't Be Treated As 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Azaz Khan v. N.I.A. through Special PP and other connected matters
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 159
The Rajasthan High Court observed that Customs Act is not included in Schedule-II of the UA(P)A and thus smuggling of gold and that too of a quantity which is bailable under the Customs Act cannot be treated as Terrorist act.
The court examined the question whether Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P)A, which was inserted in the year 2012, was meant to include the smuggling of gold in the category of 'other material'.
Notably, the single bench of this court in Mohammad Aslam v. Union of India & Ors had held that gold is a vulnerable material, smuggling of which can be done with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country and thus considered to be a 'terrorist act'.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while allowing the appeals and releasing the accused-appellant on bail, observed,
"Customs Act is not included in Schedule-II of the UA(P)A, thus smuggling of gold and that too of a quantity, which is bailable under the Customs Act cannot be treated as a Terrorist Act."
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Aman Chopra v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
The Rajasthan High Court has granted interim protection from arrest in two out of the three FIRs registered against News 18 Journalist Aman Chopra for allegedly airing a discussion show named as "Desh Jhukne Nahi Denge" and subsequently posting it on his Twitter account, which allegedly resulted in communal disharmony and communal riots on 22.04.2022 at Alwar.
Justice Birendra Kumar, observed,
"Since the subsequent FIRs for same cause of action and their investigation are itself not sustainable/permissible, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court (supra), there is no question that petitioner need not get protection from being arrested in these cases.
As such, the petitioner shall not be arrested in FIR No. 372/2022, registered with Police Station Kotwali, Alwar and FIR No. 200/2022 registered with Police Station Sadar, Bundi, till further order."
2. Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur Cancels Membership Of 2 Advocates
The High Court Bar Association of Rajasthan, Jaipur has cancelled the membership of Adv. Goverdhan Singh and Adv. Prameshwar Lal Pilania with immediate effect. The Bar Association has separately made a request to the Bar Council of Rajasthan to conduct an inquiry against the aforesaid two advocates within a period of two months and cancel the registration of the two advocates.
Notably, Adv. Govershan Singh had posted a video on social media alleging the involvement of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha's Usher in taking bribe from an Advocate.
The aforesaid decision was taken on the grounds of tarnishing the image of the court, contempt of court, for getting registered by concealing the facts of pending criminal cases, publishing alleged fake video and viral messages to gain cheap publicity and in order to fulfil their sick selfishness as well as to gain political benefit under the garb of the noble profession of advocacy.
Case Title: Lunavath Veeranna & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice on a plea filed by an inter-faith couple, seeking to declare Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 as directory in nature, so far as the same provide for publication of written notice of intended marriage, submitted under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The plea also sought to declare Sections 7 & 8 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 as directory in nature, so far as the same provide for invitation of objections upon notices published under Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 & adjudication of the same by the District Marriage Officer.
It further sought consequent declarations under Section 16 of the Act and under Rules 8, 10 & 12 of the Rajasthan Special Marriage Rules, 1955.
Essentially, the grievance of the petitioners is to the effect that they gave a notice of intended marriage under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act to the respondent No.3 – District Collector, Jodhpur, however, the said authority is insisting them for publication of notice under Section 6 of the Act of 1954.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi, observed,
"Issue notice. Issue notice of stay petition as well, returnable on 12.05.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners is free to supply the copy of the writ petition to the learned counsel usually appearing for the respondents in the matter."