- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Rajasthan High Court
- /
- Rajasthan High Court Monthly...
Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: December 2024
Nupur Agrawal
14 Jan 2025 3:30 AM
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 378 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 426NOMINAL INDEXOil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr. v Ranjan Tak & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 378Badri Prasad v Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected petition 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 379Bhawna Bohra v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 380Shri Ishwar Prasad v the State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 378 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 426
NOMINAL INDEX
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr. v Ranjan Tak & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 378
Badri Prasad v Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected petition 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 379
Bhawna Bohra v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 380
Shri Ishwar Prasad v the State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 381
Satya Narayan Tak v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 382
Smt. Jaswant Kaur v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 383
X v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 384
Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 385
Manoj Kumar Jain v. Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 386
State v Ramdin and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 387
Devendra Prajapat v Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 388
Sada Ram v the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 389
M/s Argon Remedies Pvt. Ltd. versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 390
Sarla Devi Acharya v the District and Sessions judge & Ors. and other connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 391
Dr. Pankaj Yadav v Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) & Ors. and other connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 392
Gangaram v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 393
Sunny Jain & Anr. v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 394
Dharnia Motors v. UoI & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 395
M/s R.K. Constructions Versus Ganesh Narayan Jaiswal 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 396
M/s Terrace Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited through its Managing Director 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 397
2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 398
Gordhan Lal Soni & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 399
Urmila Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 400
Laxita Kumari Patidar v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 401
Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 402
Aditya Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 403
Union of India & Ors. v JIET Medical College and Hospital & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 404
Shamboo Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 405
Shaitan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 406
Banwari Lal Swami v The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 408
Mohd. Soyab Khatri v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 409
Canara Bank v M/s Gopal Industries & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 410
Rajmal Kala v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 411
Sailendra v Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 412
Tejender Pal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 413
Naseem Ahmad Khan v ICICI Home Finance & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 414
Ambalal Dhakad v Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 415
Chandra Prakash Bharadwaj v Rajasthan Financial Corporation 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 416
State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Leeladhar Devkinandan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 417
Giriraj v Regional Forest Officer & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 418
Managing Committee, KD Jain Shikshan Parishad & Anr. v Smt. Santosh Pareek & Anr. and other connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 419
Pankaj Bhootra v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 420
Shyam Prakash Meena & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and batch 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 421
Umesh Chandra Prakash v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 422
Adnan Ali & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 423
State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Jagdish Prasad Chodhary & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 424
Ramesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 425
Moolchand v Bhairulal 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 426
Orders/Judgments of the Month
Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr. v Ranjan Tak & anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 378
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for rejecting the candidature of a person with disability, who was otherwise declared meritorious in the selection process, certifying him as medically unfit for suffering 30% visual impairment.
In doing so the court observed that candidate's rejection merely because he suffered disability lower than minimum degree of disability of 40% i.e. benchmark disability was an illegal action by ONGC.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that once a post was declared to be suitable for a particular kind of disability, a candidate suffering from such disability could not be declared medically unfit, if otherwise, s/he was meritorious, just because s/he was disentitled for claiming reservation since their percentage of disability was lesser than the benchmarked percentage for claiming reservation.
Title: Badri Prasad v Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected petition
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 379
Rajasthan High Court ruled that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India only states that accused could not be compelled to be a witness against himself and not that the accused could not be compelled to be a witness at all.
Consequently, asking the accused to furnish his/her voice samples did not amount to self-incrimination when the incrimination was contingent on comparing that voice sample with the recordings available.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain further observed that under Section 349 of BNSS, the Legislature had explicitly empowered the Class-I Magistrate to direct individuals, including the accused to furnish voice samples for investigation.
Title: Bhawna Bohra v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 380
Rajasthan High Court provided relief to a successful candidate for the post of Anganwari worker, who although was declared as meritorious in the selection list in 2016, owing to inaction on part of the Gram Panchayat, did not receive any appointment letter till date.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga held that the petitioner could not be made to face adverse consequences for inaction or ministerial lapse on part of the Gram Panchayat and she could not be denied of her merit merely for a procedural aid.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the petitioner who was declared meritorious in the selection process of the Anganwari Workers in 2016. However, the Gram Panchayat failed to follow the prescribed procedure as per which it had to convey the selection list to the Vikas Adhikari as well as the Project Officers, Integrated Child Development Scheme, and complete the process of filling the Post within the prescribed time limit of 3 months.
Title: Shri Ishwar Prasad v the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 381
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a PIL filed by the national President of “Lashkar-E-Hind”, challenging the appointment of Additional Advocate Generals (“AAGs”) and Law Officers (“LOs”) by the State Government, for lacking any merits and being filed solely on the basis of vague allegations.
“The suitability of a lawyer who is engaged by the Government is a matter exclusively within the domain of the executive decision and such a decision cannot be challenged on the ground that other suitable and more competent lawyers have been left out and by doing so the larger public interest has been overlooked.”
The division bench of Justice Rekha Borana and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar opined that there could not be any restrictions on this power of the State Government in the form of criteria of eligibility for such Appointments like age, length of practice, place of practice etc. and the same could be modified at any time by the State Government. Such a choice exercised by the State Government could be challenged only if shown to be arbitrary.
Title: Satya Narayan Tak v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 382
Rajasthan High Court expressed shock on the order of Municipal Commissioner of Udaipur, rejecting a bonafide purchaser's application for entering his name in Revenue Records on the grounds that a dispute was pending in the trial court regarding the property, despite the fact that the trial court had already rejected plaintiff's application of temporary injunction in that case.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that rejection of the petitioner's application by the authorities was arbitrary, unreasonable and without application of mind. It opined that it was a settled law that pendency of a suit could not be used as a ground by the government officials to not discharge their official duties.
Title: Smt. Jaswant Kaur v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 383
Rajasthan High Court rejected petition by a disabled candidate for the post of Female Nurse suffering from 61% polio in both her legs, on the grounds that the guidelines specifying the disabilities eligible for reservation of the post reflected only single-leg disability and held that merely because she temporarily served on the post during Covid, she could not be conferred with any equity.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga also highlighted that other similarly situated candidates as the petitioner were also disqualified under the same criteria. Hence, allowing petitioner's claim would lead to reverse discrimination against those who were not before the Court.
Title: X v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 384
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed a habeas corpus plea filed by the father of a minor child was born and earlier residing in the US, was brought to India by his mother in 2018 and had not returned even after expiration of his visa, ruling that the child shall be considered an illegal migrant in India.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta further observed that in light of a prior final custody order passed by the US Court in favour of the petitioner, based on the Doctrine of Comity of Courts, the Family court in India had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Guardians and Wards Act filed by the mother of the child.
On the question of the welfare of the minor child, the Court said:
“As an illegal migrant child...is not entitled to many of the Constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and would always be treated as an illegal migrant and would not even be treated as second class citizen as he is not even holding an Overseas Citizenship of India Card. Thus, the welfare of the child is in returning to the place of his birth i.e. United States of America, where all the rights would be available to him.”
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 385
Upholding an order dismissing a father's plea seeking termination of his daughter's over 24-week pregnancy who was allegedly trafficked and raped, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue noting that there was no obligation in law on the State to apprise a sexual assault survivor of her right to termination.
In doing so the court observed that delay in taking steps resulted in various complications that compelled such women to continue with unwanted pregnancies.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Uma Shankar Vyas observed that it had been noticed that numerous petitions were filed seeking Court's intervention for termination of pregnancy mainly because proper steps were not being taken by the victim within the stipulated time period under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Title: Manoj Kumar Jain v. Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 386
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to the assessee charged for issuing fake invoices to the firms on the ground that the department failed to prove that these firms are not in existence and their GST registration have been cancelled.
The Bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena observed that “……there is nothing on record that who claimed how much input tax credit on the basis of alleged fake invoices said to have been issued by the accused”.
The bench looked into the complaint and observed that the addresses as mentioned in the GST registration of such firms is non-traceable and the proprietor of the firms could not be traced.
“The Department has only stated that the proprietors of these firms are non-traceable but there is no conclusion by them that these firms are not in existence after making a proper verification and also, they have not come out with a fact that the GST registration of these firms have been cancelled,” added the bench.
Title: State v Ramdin and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 387
Overturning a 22-year old acquittal in a dowry death case, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court cancelled the bail bonds of the accused father-in-law and the mother-in-law, noting that they failed to explain the circumstances leading to the woman's death since the alleged crime took place within the four walls of their home.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas said that the duo failed to discharge their obligation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which lays down that when any fact was especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact was upon him.
"This Court also observes that in the instant case, the crime in question took place within the four-walls of the victim's matrimonial house and therefore, in such a circumstance the burden is upon the in-laws who were present in the house to explain the facts and the circumstances under which the incident in question has taken place, by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act...This Court observes that in the present case the accused respondents upon the death of the victim, performed her cremation in a hurried manner without informing her family members or police and thereby also preventing the post-mortem of her dead body being conducted which speaks volume of their conduct and manifests intention on their part to concoct the story and to destruct the evidence to shield themselves"
Title: Devendra Prajapat v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 388
Rajasthan High Court directed granting of admission to a student in the Shri School Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (“the School”) who did not attend 3rd standard for full one academic session on account of the classes commencing with a few months delay due to Covid, as against the selection guidelines that required the candidate to pass standards 3rd, 4th and 5th after spending one full academic session.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the clause specifying this condition in the guidelines had to be given a liberal reading in a way that- the situation which was beyond the student's control does not come in the way of his admission.
Title: Sada Ram v the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 389
Rajasthan High Court rejected the petition filed against order of the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (“Respondent”) wherein petitioner's appointment was cancelled, on the grounds that the MBA degree based on which the appointment was obtained was fraudulent and false.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta further rejected the prayer of the petitioner to regularize his appointment based on subsequent degree, opining that the degree of MBA was a prerequisite for the recruitment, thus the appointment based on mark-sheets issued by a fake/unrecognized and fraudulent institution was illegal.
The Court further ruled that in an era of cut-throat competition, no equity could be claimed by a candidate who produced fake mark-sheets for his degree.
Title: M/s Argon Remedies Pvt. Ltd. versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 390
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that it is a well-established principle of law if there is any contractual stipulation between the parties which under-mines the scope of the arbitration clause. Then, the same will be given an interpretation in the manner which gives full effect to the arbitration agreement between the parties.
Additionally, the court observed that from bare perusal of Clause 22(2) reflects the intention of parties to refer the dispute to the arbitration for its decision and further the clause does not exclude the attributes of an arbitration agreement that the decision of Arbitrator shall not be final and would not be binding on the parties. Therefore, the court held that it is appropriate to refer the dispute to the arbitration for decision, instead of rejecting the arbitration application on the ground that all essential elements of the arbitration agreement are absent in Clause 22(2).
Title: Sarla Devi Acharya v the District and Sessions judge & Ors. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 391
Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of writ petitions filed by daughters claiming family pension pursuant to their respective parents' death who were government employees, on the basis of them attaining status of a widow or a divorcee, subsequent to their parents' demise.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled that the relevant date for determining family's right to receive family pension was the date of retirement or the date of death of the government servant, and accordingly, for a daughter to be eligible for father's pension, she must have a status of a widow or a divorcee on such a date. Her status subsequent to the father's death would not render her the right to claim family pension.
Title: Dr. Pankaj Yadav v Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) & Ors. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 392
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of writ petitions challenging the final answer key issued by the Rajasthan University of Health Science for Dental Medical Officer's exam ruling that the only situation in which disputed answer key can be interfered with if it appears to be “palpably and demonstrably erroneous”.
In doing so the court found that the RUHS duly noted the objections raised by the concerned candidates against the model answer key, which was also analyzed by experts after which necessary changes were made, adding that no procedural lapses had occurred.
Referring to various Supreme Court decisions on the issue Justice Sameer Jain said:
"Therefore, it is abundantly made clear that a disputed question-answer shall only be treated as palpably and demonstrably wrong, if it is shown that in order to catch hold of the said error and/or notice the fallaciousness crept therein, one ought not to apply a process of reasoning. Rather, the error should be so apparent, that the same may discernible by a mere glimpse, as opposed to a thoughtful analysis. Similarly, even when two equally valiant interpretations of an answer are possible, it cannot be said that the answer is demonstrably erroneous".
Title: Gangaram v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 393
Taking note of the conflicting views, Rajasthan High Court has referred the issue of Whether a prisoner, convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC/POCSO Act, undergoing the sentence of imprisonment in Jail, can be shifted to Open Air Camp, to a Larger bench.
“There is no exact decision on the legal issue involved in this petition, rather there are conflicting opinions and views of different Division Benches of this Court, but in the case of Asharam @ Ashu (supra), the question of law has been kept open by the Hon'ble Apex Court, hence, the same is required to be decided for all times to come, so that there should be uniformity in the orders on the legal issue involved in these petitions,” Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted while hearing a bunch of petitions filed by individuals seeking to be shifted from jail to open air camps.
Title: Sunny Jain & Anr. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 394
Rajasthan High Court has directed the quashing of Look Out Circular and standing arrest warrant issued against the petitioner, who was not found to be involved in the alleged offence by the police, ruling that when the police itself was not interested in prosecuting her, continuation of the LOC would amount to violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held,
“It is the settled proposition of law that the LOC can be opened against the accused person who is deliberately evading arrest and not appearing in the trial Court despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures. Coupled with either of these conditions, should be a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade the trial/arrest. None of these conditions exist in the instant case qua the petitioner No.2…Neither any investigation is pending against her nor any charge-sheet has been submitted against her and the Investigating Officer himself has submitted an application for recalling of her standing arrest warrant”
Title: Dharnia Motors v. UoI & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 395
The Rajasthan High Court held that Rules prescribing the 'time and manner' for claiming transitional credit, in addition to the statutory procedure provided under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, are mandatory in nature.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman thus held that prescriptions under Section 117 of CGST Rules are mandatory in nature, and non-compliance thereof would lead to rejection of a trader/dealer's claim of transitional credit.
“Substantive provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017, clearly mandates that entitlement to take credit of eligible duties would be available within such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed, subject to conditions as laid down,” it observed.
Title: M/s R.K. Constructions Versus Ganesh Narayan Jaiswal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 396
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act cannot enter into merits of subject matter of the disputes. It has to see only the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
The court after perusing the arbitration clause observed that “since the arbitration clause to settle the disputes/ differences between the parties through arbitration was also entered into as one of the terms and conditions of the agreements and words every kind of disputes/ differences is referred therein, same may not be allowed to be construed in such a narrow sense to construe the arbitration agreement, confines it to the dispute of construction work only.”
Title: M/s Terrace Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited through its Managing Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 397
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that the issue of validity of arbitration agreement more particularly in respect of having essential elements of the arbitration agreement, can better be considered and decided on merits by the arbitration tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
It further observed that “It is well established principle of law that if there is any contractual stipulation between the parties which under-mines the scope of arbitration clause, the same will be given an interpretation in the manner which gives full effect to the arbitration agreement between the parties.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 398
The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday allowed self-styled godman, Asaram Bapu, serving a life sentence for raping a minor girl, to get medical treatment at a Maharashtra-based Multidisciplinary Cardiac Care Hospital for 17 days in police custody.
“Concededly, the applicant is behind the bars for last 12 years and he is 88 years of age and suffering from multiple ailments including heart ailment. Hence, in order to ensure his right to get proper treatment, we are inclined to accept the application filed by the applicant for his treatment and send him to Madhavbaug Hospital in police custody,” a bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed in its order.
Title: Gordhan Lal Soni & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 399
Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR filed by the police on directions from the CJM based on a complaint under Section 175(3), BNSS, calling it a “rubber-stamp decision making” and observing complete judicial oversight on part of the CJM. It was opined that no judicial mind was applied for making an independent determination regarding prima facie existence of the case against the accused.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga ruled that in cases of family disputes, magistrates must aim at strengthening familial bonds and fostering harmony, and utmost caution must be exercised by both the law enforcement as well as the magistrates before directing registration of FIRs by meticulous ascertainment of truth and credibility of allegations.
Title: Urmila Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 400
Rajasthan High Court accepted the petition by the first wife of a deceased government employee for family pension on the grounds that no valid divorce took place between them since “social divorce” was not recognized by our legal system. In this light, since the marriage with the second wife was not valid as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”), she could not be seen as “widow” of the deceased employee for being entitled to the family pension.
“Thus, the second marriage of anyone, without dissolution of first marriage cannot be treated as a valid marriage and such second wife cannot be treated as a 'widow' of the deceased Government Servant in terms of Rule 66 & 67 of the Rules of 1996…In cases where the deceased employee had a second wife without legally divorcing the first wife, only the first wife would be entitled to the pension benefits”
Furthermore, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that authorities could not ask for succession certificate for claiming family pension since the certificate was granted for recovery of debt or security and family pension did not fall within that purview.
Title: Laxita Kumari Patidar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 401
Rajasthan High Court observed that the State could not take advantage of its own wrong of issuing an incorrect experience certificate to the petitioner and then making her run from pillar to post, and rejecting her candidature for the post of Auxiliary Nurse & Midwives based on such mistake.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga highlighted that the mistake of mentioning wrong date was committed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Udaipur, while issuing the experience certificate, for which the petitioner could not be made responsible.
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 402
While rejecting the application for termination of 30 weeks pregnancy by an alleged rape victim, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that a fully developed foetus also has the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The medical report indicates that fetus is gaining weight and fat and is closure to its natural birth. Vital organs, like brain and lungs are almost fully developed, preparing for life outside the womb. The fetus has, in fact life with heart beats, hence termination of pregnancy, at this stage, is not adviseable and possible. The fully developed fetus also has right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to enter in this world and live a healthy life without any abnormalities.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the report by the Medical Board indicated that at such an advanced stage termination was not safe as it presented the risk of premature delivery which was likely to affect the neurotic development of the unborn child apart from exposing the petitioner's life to danger.
Title: Aditya Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 403
Rajasthan High Court allowed writ petition filed by a candidate for the post of a teacher for changing his category from “unreserved” to “physically handicapped” when his blindness transformed from 40% to 100% in between submission of application and publication of result.
Opining it to be an instance of Vis Major (Act of God), the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that the principle of reasonable accommodation as defined under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“the Act”) should not be understood narrowly to mean only providing assisting devices but be given a broad interpretation to further the Act's objective of ensuring full and effective participation of people with disabilities.
Title: Union of India & Ors. v JIET Medical College and Hospital & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 404
While hearing an appeal against a single judge's interim order allowing increase in seats in a medical college, the Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with the same since the admission process was already over.
In doing so the high court, while observing that an interim order increasing the seats should not have been granted, directed the single judge to decide the matter expeditiously.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing an appeal filed by the Union of India, National Medical Commission and the Medical Assessment And Rating Board, against the interim order of the single judge who had allowed increase of seats in JIET Medical College from 50-100.
Title: Shamboo Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 405
While terming it one of the most glaring cases of insubordination, the Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition filed against the suspension of a Government teacher for hurling slogans and using unparliamentary language against the Education Minister, burning his effigies and also raising hoarding belittling him, ruling that such unruly behaviour could not be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta opined that such behaviour amounted to misconduct, calling for a disciplinary inquiry against him. The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Government Teacher (“petitioner”) against the order of the District Education Officer vide which he was suspended.
Title: Shaitan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 406
In light of the revised Zonal Master Plan 2030 for Mount Abu being published by a notification dated December 11, 2024, the Rajasthan High Court directed resubmission of pending applications for constructions in Mount Abu under the revised Master Plan within a week and asked the Municipal Board, Mount Abu, to decide such applications within 4 weeks thereafter. The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur held,
“In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file an appropriate application seeking permission of construction on the subject pieces of their land in accordance with the provisions of the Zonal Master Plan-2030 Mount Abu Eco-Sensitive Zone and the building bylaws prevailing in the Mount Abu within a period of one week and the respondent – Municipal Board Mount Abu shall decide such applications within a period of four weeks thereafter…”
Title: Banwari Lal Swami v The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a father-in-law for filing a “baseless” writ petition seeking removal of his daughter-in-law from the post of patwari on the grounds of a pending FIR against her filed by him alleging her of abetting his son's suicide.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that it was a settled position of law that process of law should not be used to settle personal grudges and oblique considerations, and such an act by the petitioner was sheer abuse of the process of law.
Title: Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 408
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court granted relief to an inter-caste married couple whose claim under the Dr. Savita Ben Ambedkar Inter-Caste Marriage Help Scheme (“the Scheme”) was rejected for not curing the defect in the application within a period of one month.
The Scheme was started by the Government of Rajasthan to promote marriages between Hindu and Scheduled Caste girls and boys. As per the Scheme such an inter-caste couple, upto the age of 35 years, was entitled to get Rs. 5 lakhs. Half of the amount was to be given within one year of registration of marriage for purchasing household goods, and the remaining amount was to be kept as fixed deposit in a joint account of the couple that could be claimed only after 8 years of marriage.
Title: Mohd. Soyab Khatri v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 409
Dismissing a plea by the Chairman of the Municipal Corporation, Nawalgarh alleging political vendetta behind show cause notices issued to him, the Jaipur bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan at the Rajasthan High Court said that political vendetta cannot be used as a shield to curb the initiation of proceedings under the law.
The grievance raised by the petitioner was that he belongs to a particular political party and with the formation of Government by rival political party in Legislative Assembly, he has been targeted. The court however said that if show cause notices are quashed based on "bald statement" of a political vendetta that even in lawful cases the proceedings will be curbed at the threshold.
Title: Canara Bank v M/s Gopal Industries & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 410
A division bench of Justice Pushpenda Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that a bank has the valuable right of general lien over all securities deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business, unless the agreement is contrary to such right.
In doing so the court set aside an order of the single judge directing Canara Bank to return the balance amount to a guarantor which was left after adjusting the loan amount from the money received after auctioning the guarantor's property, instead of allowing the Bank to adjust the balance amount in relation to another loan that had become Non Performing Asset with the same guarantor.
Title: Rajmal Kala v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 411
The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court directed the State to delete the name of a man–booked in seven cases–from the police's Surveillance Register on the ground that he had not been convicted twice in the cases pending against him.
Perusing through the record, judgments cited by the parties and Rajasthan Police Rules, Justice Manoj Kumar Garg in his order said, “Court is of the opinion that it is a consistent position of the precedent law that where a person is not convicted twice in the cases pending against him, then the entry of the name of the person concerned from the surveillance register was to be removed.”
Title: Sailendra v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 412
The bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court allowed petition by a candidate for the post of constable who was declared medically unfit on account of hypertension without conducting a 24-hours Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) Test and directed the State to re-examine the candidate and till then keeping a post vacant for him.
Title: Tejender Pal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 413
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Section 152, BNS had its roots in Section 124A of the IPC and was similarly worded to the offence of sedition. The Court ruled that the provision should not be used to cripple legitimate dissent and that only deliberate actions with malicious intent fell under its ambit.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga explained that Section 197, BNS, was aimed at protecting the harmony amongst diverse society of India by criminalizing such acts that fostered disharmony, enmity and hatred among these diverse groups. However, mere possibility of the offending act resulting in disharmony if in actuality it did not, was not sufficient to establish intent in the absence of any other material.
Title: Naseem Ahmad Khan v ICICI Home Finance & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 414
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea by the purchaser of a property–in relation to which proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act, on the ground that the purchaser had already availed the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan, while referring to a Supreme Court decision on this issue, observed that the "self-imposed restriction of non-interference in writ petitions where statutory remedies were available" has to be rigorously applied in cases covered under the SARFAESI Act.
Title: Ambalal Dhakad v Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 415
Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur (“Commissioner”) that rejected the application for impleadment of a public trust in an appeal filed for quashing the order vide which the registration of the trust was allowed, ruling that the trust was a necessary and property party for adjudication of the appeal.
Furthermore, the bench of Justice Nupur Bhati rejected the argument to the effect that since the Assistance Commissioner had merely allowed the application vide a finding under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1950 (“the Act”) for registration of the Public Trust without actually making the entries as per Section 21 of the Act, the Public Trust could not be considered to be registered and thus could not be impleaded as a party.
Title: Chandra Prakash Bharadwaj v Rajasthan Financial Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 416
A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that the employee is entitled to the payment of annual grade increments as well as arrears of last drawn salary during the suspension period. It was found by the court that the provision of Rule 37-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules and Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff Regulations), 1958 deals with the issue of suspension but do not suggest withholding of annual grade increments of the employee during his suspension period.
Title: State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Leeladhar Devkinandan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 417
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati held that it is a well settled law that the interpretation of the clause of Agreement by the Arbitrator shall not be open to judicial interference unless it is demonstrated before the Court that the interpretation put by the Arbitral Tribunal was perverse.
Additionally, the court held that if the view taken by the Arbitrator is logical and acceptable merely because two views are possible the Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction shall not interfere with the Arbitral award.
Title: Giriraj v Regional Forest Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 418
A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sudesh Bansal, held that an adverse inference can't be drawn against employer for non-production of record against workman's service period, it is upon the workman to prove their service period of 240 days preceding termination of service.
It was observed by the court that since the workman has only produced his self-serving affidavit in support of his claim which too has been countered from the side of respondents. No other supportive evidence or record has been produced by the petitioner nor any efforts were made to summon the record, muster roll register, attendance register, wages register etc. from the respondents.
Title: Managing Committee, KD Jain Shikshan Parishad & Anr. v Smt. Santosh Pareek & Anr. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 419
A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court, comprising of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that the grant-in-aid can be sanctioned and paid directly by the State Government to the employees of the aided educational institutions.
The case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. The Management Committee Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College was relied upon by the court wherein the Division Bench held that the grant-in-aid can be sanctioned and paid directly by the State Government to the employees of the aided educational institutions in the light of Section 31(2) of the Act of 1989.
It was held by the court that the Employee was entitled to recover their dues directly from the State Government in a ratio of 80%. It was further held by the Court that for the 20% of dues, interest on the delayed payment was to be borne by the Institution only.
Title: Pankaj Bhootra v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 420
Dismissing a petition against suspension of a government employee in contemplation of the departmental enquiry against him, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the scope of interference in matters of suspension was very limited.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said, “In matters of suspension, the exercise of extraordinary power of judicial review vested in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Scope of consideration is limited to the extent of examining the competence of the authority who places an employee under suspension; arbitrary exercise of power; selective suspension; allegations are frivolous/ technical in nature; suspension was wholly unwarranted; and there was no application of mind. In matters of suspension, each case has to be examined in the factual back ground of given case.”
Title: Shyam Prakash Meena & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and batch
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 421
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a provision in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules as ultra vires which sought to levy additional fee of Rs. 50 for each day of delay in making an application for renewal of the certificate of fitness required by the transport operators for their vehicles to operate on roads.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar held that under the garb of additional fee, the State had introduced a legislative policy of fine without there being any such scheme of fine under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, on failure of applying for the renewal of the fitness certificate.
Title: Umesh Chandra Prakash v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 422
Rajasthan High Court imposed symbolic cost of Rs. 1000/- on numerous petitioners for approaching the Court with the same cause of action that had already been decided by the Court on two occasions with specific directions to everyone with same cause of action to directly approach the concerned Government Department by filing representations and also directing the Department to decide the representations in light of the Court's judgment.
“Imposition of cost is necessary… to ensure that access to justice by Courts is available to the citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors of justice would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system… Every litigation has to come to an end at some point of time and similar and identical litigation cannot be allowed to flourish again and again for the luxury of the litigants, who are burdening this Court unnecessarily seeking similar order again and again.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that such repeated petitions amounted to abuse of the process of law that consumed Court's time and clogged the infrastructure.
Title: Adnan Ali & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 423
In relation to Muslim marriages, Rajasthan High Court ruled that a sacred relationship like marriage had to be recognized by a document which was unambiguous, vividly clear, explicit and transparent, and should not be issued in a language like Urdu which was not widely known to a society, especially to public servants and officers of the Court.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that it would help in resolving complexities if the printed proforma of a Nikah Nama contained Hindi or English.
Furthermore, the Court also observed that the District Magistrate/ Collector of every city should keep a register with a record of individuals who could perform Nikah-Nama and only such people shall be eligible to perform the ceremony of Nikah.
Title: State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Jagdish Prasad Chodhary & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 424
A Division Bench of Justices Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Ashutosh Kumar at the Rajasthan High Court upheld a single-judge decision that allowed a government employee to include his territorial army service in pension calculations. The Court ruled that pension rules introduced in 1996 could not retrospectively be applied to those who joined under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
Title: Ramesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 425
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail of an Air Force personnel on the grounds that he allegedly misrepresented and hid material true facts when he argued his anticipatory bail which was eventually granted last year.
Justice Farjand Ali observed that during the proceedings of anticipatory bail, the counsel appearing for the accused had only mentioned the charges of hurt (Section 323) and endangering human life (Section 336) while hiding the charge of grievous hurt which was added on account of the victim permanently losing vision in his left eye due to the injury caused by the accused.
Title: Moolchand v Bhairulal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 426
The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that where the complaint of cheque bouncing was filed before the expiry of stipulated timeline of 15 days under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court could not take cognizance of such compliant.
However, the court while referring to Supreme Court decisions on the issue said that, in such case, the holder could register a second complaint on same cause of action within one month of receiving the order in the first complaint, as the complainant cannot be left remediless. It further said the very object of laying down of such a law was to curtail the practice of filing the pre-mature complaints. However, the court noted, that by grating liberty to file fresh complaint in cases where the complaints have already been filed before the expiry of the mandatory period of fifteen days in terms of Section 138 (c) of the Act, a balance has been struck so as to not make the complainant remediless.