Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: January 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 01 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 42

NOMINAL INDEX

Ramesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 1

Narpat Surela v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 2

Amrit Transport Company v Oriental Insurance Company & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 3

Nopa Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 4

M/s S.A.S R.K. Marble Udhyog v Shree Pustimargiya & Ors., and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 5

Dinesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 6

Dr. Ashok Kumar v the State of Rajasthan and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 7

Ramesh v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 8

Alok Chitra Mandir v Hemant Jain, Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 9

Vikram Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 10

Dr. Amit Mundel v Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 11

Omprakash Sundra v Pawan Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 12

Arun Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 13

Arvind Kumar v Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 14

Heera Lal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 15

Sh. Mohanlal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 16

Shyam Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 17

Sunder Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 18

Amrit Pal v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 19

Jaipur Development Authority v. TPl-Sucg Consortium 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 20

Asharam Alias Ashumal v/s State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 21

Pallav Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 22

X v/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 23

Padam Chand Prajapat v L.I.C and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 24

Abdul Hamid v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 25

Shivangi Pathak v The Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 26

 Narendra Kumar Soni v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 27

Jodhpur Institute of Engineering and Technology v Appellant Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 28

Sohan Lal Sharma v State Finance and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 29

Suresh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 30

Tulcha Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 31

Rashmi Khandelwal v Kanhiyalal and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 32

Mamta Sharma v State and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 33

Kalyan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 34

Himmat Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 35

Gurdeep Singh v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 36

Sunita Dhawan v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 37

Jyoti Parmar v State Institute of Health and Family Welfare & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 38

Sita Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 39

Sulochana v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 40

Devendra Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 41

X and Y v/s State of Rajasthan and Others 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 42

Roodaram & Ors. v the Board of Revenue & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 43

Priyansha Gupta v Union of India & Ors.

Suo Motu : In the matter of tackling the issue of 'Digital Arrest Scams', Cyber Crimes and saving the innocent people from loosing their money and lives

Ganga Kumari v State of Rajasthan

X and Y v/s State of Rajasthan and Others

 Sunil Vyas v Bar Council of Rajasthan & Ors

Orders/Judgments of the Month

Rajasthan HC Cancels Air Force Personnel's Anticipatory Bail Due To Misrepresentation, Hiding True Facts Like Grievous Injury Caused to Victim

Title: Ramesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 1

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.

Not Issuing Provisional Answer Key Or Inviting Objections During Recruitment Process Violates Fundamental Rights Of Candidates: Rajasthan HC

Title: Narpat Surela v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 2

Rajasthan High Court has ruled that not following the procedure like issuance of model answer key, inviting objections, constitution of committee of experts and issuance of final answer key in the recruitment process for government posts, renders the process non-transparent and violates the fundamental rights of the aspirants under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain thus directed the State and its authorities including the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Rajasthan Staff Selection Board to undertake the recruitment process in strict adherence to the law and the Supreme Court's decision in Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab and Haryana High Court & Ors., and prepare a fresh merit list within 2 months.

Claim Bill/Voucher Not Akin To Notice Under Carriage By Road Act Which Is A Precondition For Instituting Legal Proceedings: Rajasthan HC

Title: Amrit Transport Company v Oriental Insurance Company & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 3

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a claim bill (voucher) cannot be equated to a notice required under Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, as per which legal proceedings cannot be initiated against a common carrier unless a notice in writing was served on them.

The court also observed that under Section 16 the Carriage by Road Act provides that before institution of suit or legal proceedings, it is necessary to serve a notice of demand in writing. Thus, a suit or proceeding can be instituted, only after such notice, the court opined.

Magistrate Must Show Disagreement With Police's Negative Final Report While Taking Cognizance Of Offence On A Protest Plea: Rajasthan HC

Title: Nopa Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 4

While setting aside a decision of the trial court taking cognizance of offences including rioting in a protest plea, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that it was settled law that while taking cognizance of offence on a protest petition the Magistrate should demonstrate his "disagreement with the police report".

Justice Farjand Ali held that a definite opinion was required to be made or at least grounds of final report had to be considered by the magistrate before proceeding further.

Rajasthan Tenancy Act | Land Recorded As “For Mining Purposes” In Revenue Records Cannot Be Used For Agricultural Purposes: High Court

Title: M/s S.A.S R.K. Marble Udhyog v Shree Pustimargiya & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 5

Rajasthan High Court has ruled that since mining could not be termed as an agricultural activity under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”), the land used for mining operations could not be termed as a land used for agricultural purposes especially when in the revenue records the nature of the land was recorded as “for mining purposes”.

After hearing the counsels, the Court perused Section 5(24) and Section 5(2) of the Act that defined “Land” and “Agriculture” respectively, and held that the conjoint reading of these reflected that the mining could not be termed as an agricultural activity and the land used for mining operations could not be termed as a land used for agricultural purposes.

Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Termination Of Govt Employee For Appearing As Dummy Candidate In Exam, Says Charge Wasn't Included In Charge-Sheet

Title: Dinesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 6

Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of a District Education Officer wherein the services of a Junior Assistant (Clerk Grade-II) (“Petitioner”) were terminated based on the fact that the ground on which the Petitioner was terminated was not appearing either in the charge sheet or in the inquiry report.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta held that,

“In the opinion of this Court, when there was no charge in the memorandum of charges relating to petitioner's involvement as a dummy candidate and charge No.3 was only in relation to concealment from the respondents of his arrest in a criminal case, the disciplinary authority could not have proceeded on assumption of his guilt of appearing as a dummy candidate, more particularly, when neither the charge-sheet nor the inquiry report suggested the same.”

Judicial Restraint Paramount For Cognizance In Medico-Legal Cases: Rajasthan HC Exonerates Doctors Charged Of Forging Pathological Report

Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar v the State of Rajasthan and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 7

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has underscored that in cases concerning doctors/hospital administration involving allegations of forging pathological reports, meticulous judicial scrutiny was required before taking cognizance, especially when the doctor had not refuted the authenticity of the signatures.

Justice Farjand Ali opined that the risk of invoking presumptions under Section 114, Indian Evidence Act in medico-legal matters was magnified and hence in such cases, the Court must refrain from applying the theory of general presumptions unless there was clear, scientific and legally admissible evidence available to substantiate the allegations. For context Section 114 lays down that the Courts could presume existence of a fact which was likely to have happened in light of common cause of events, human conduct and public and private business.

Rajasthan High Court Questions Special POCSO Judge For Denying Bail To Man Not Named In Victim Statement

Title: Ramesh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 8

Expressing “anguish and pain” over denial of bail to a man not even named by the minor victim in her statement, the Rajasthan High Court has sought explanation from a Special POCSO Judge for his decision.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman opined that the increasing tendency of trial courts in rejecting bail petitions in a "casual and routine manner" even in appropriate cases was concerning and needed to stop as it not only increased agony of accused persons languishing in an overcrowded prison system of India but also increased burden on High Courts.

“Denying such a right in a routine manner even in appropriate cases amounts to failure of the courts in performing the sacrosanct judicial function, which is the paramount feature of the judicial system in this country. Trial Courts functioning at the district level make up the very foundation of the Indian Judicial system which makes it even more important for the High Courts to not condone such practices of the Trial Courts.”

Rajasthan HC Directs Tax Commissioner To Recall 'Contemptuous Order' Denying Benefit Of Entertainment Tax Scheme To Cinema Theatre

Title: Alok Chitra Mandir v Hemant Jain, Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 9

The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court recently directed the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Bikaner to recall its order denying benefit of an amended scheme on entertainment tax to a cinema theatre, terming it contemptuous since it affirmed an earlier order which had already been annulled by the high court in 2014.

After hearing the contentions and perusing the 2014 order Justice Rekha Borana observed that the high court had then held in specific terms that the petitioner could not be deprived of the benefit of the amended scheme which came into effect from February 23, 1995 and further, the contention of the department that the petitioner would be governed by the old unamended scheme could not be accepted.

MV Act | Show Cause Notices, Inquiry By Registering Authority Other Than Original Registering Authority Not Illegal: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vikram Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 10

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has said that even though only the original registering authority could cancel the registration of a vehicle under Section 55(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the provision does not prevent any other registering authority from issuing show cause notices and/or conducting inquiry in the matter.

For context, Section 55(2) MV Act lays down cancellation of registration and provides that the original registering authority could cancel the registration, and any other registering authority than the original one could forward the report to the original authority to cancel the registration.

NEET Spot Counselling Is Continuation Of Process To Fill Seats, Prospectus Conditions Applicable: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dr. Amit Mundel v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 11

Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition filed against AIIMS, Jodhpur challenging the demand for a deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 from the petitioner who took admission pursuant to spot counselling in the college but then chose to vacate the seat mid semester.

The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the condition of depositing the amount in the event of vacating the seat mid-semester was mentioned in the prospectus issued in 2023 and since the process of spot counselling was a continuation of the process of filling up of vacant seats in the PG program in 2023, it did not make any difference if the condition was not mentioned in the notification for spot counselling.

Cheque Dishonour: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Conviction After Compromise, But Imposes 15% Cost On Drawer Citing Failed Appeal

Title: Omprakash Sundra v Pawan Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 12

Rajasthan High Court set aside conviction and sentence in a cheque dishonour case in light of settlement reached between the parties while imposing a cost of 15% of the cheque value on the petitioner (convict) since the compromise was reached at after rejection of appeal filed by the convict and pending revision petition.

The Court made reference to the Supreme Court case of Damodar S. Prabhu v Sayed Babala H. and ruled,

“sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be set aside. However, since the compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 15% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner…”

Rajasthan HC Upholds Reversal Of Certain Teachers' Promotion To Maintain Seniority, Says Not Granting Them Hearing Caused No Prejudice

Title: Arun Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 13

Rajasthan High Court has upheld the unilateral reversal of promotion granted to certain Grade-III Teachers, in order to maintain the list of seniority.

In such a scenario, bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta said, the State's omission to give the teachers an opportunity of hearing did not cause any prejudice since admittedly, the persons who were granted promotion in Petitioners' place, were senior to the petitioners.

“The petitioners reversion is a natural concomitant of grant of promotion to the persons senior to them, which has been done in review DPC...Such being the factual backdrop, the observance of principles of natural justice, even if made, would have been an empty formality,” the bench observed.

Rajasthan HC Slams State For Denying Mason Post To Man With Amputation In Non-Dominant Hand, Appointing Man With Amputation In Dominant Hand Instead

Title: Arvind Kumar v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 14

Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition filed by a candidate denied mason post for being declared medically unfit on account of amputated little finger of his left hand (non-dominant hand), as opposed to another candidate who was given the employment despite having amputation of finger in his dominant hand.

While terming the approach of the State to be “lopsided on the very basic commonsense”, the bench of Justice Arun Monga opined that the petitioner was subjected to discrimination as compared to the other candidate, and observed that what had to be seen for a right-handed person was if he had any unfitness in the same hand, and if not, whether the left hand interfered with the skill of the right hand.

Party Can't Bypass Sessions Court And Directly Move High Court In Revision Against Order Framing Charge, Court Already Flooded: Rajasthan HC

Title: Heera Lal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 15

Remarking that the court is already flooded with several quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC, the Rajasthan High Court observed that though both High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction to review orders, a party cannot bypass the Sessions court's revisional jurisdiction.

Section 397, CrPC lays down the revisional powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court.The Court was hearing a quashing petition under Section 482, CrPC, challenging an FIR filed against the Petitioner as well as the order of the magistrate's court wherein charges were framed against him.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said, "This Court is already flooded with lot of Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence one cannot be allowed to by-pass the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court only because this Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or both the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. No exceptional case has been made out by the petitioner for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a petition against the order of framing of impugned charges against him".

Successive Petitions U/S 482 CrPC Not Entertainable If Filed Without Any Change Of Facts Or Circumstances: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

Title: Sh. Mohanlal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 16

Rajasthan High Court reiterated that there was no blanket rule against filing successive petitions under Section 482, CrPC, before the High Court, however, in such petitions it had to be seen whether there was any change in facts and circumstances that necessitated filing of the petition.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition against the order of the Additional CJM wherein cognizance of offences was taken against the petitioners.

Against this order, a criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioners before the Additional Sessions Judge, but the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had approached the Court earlier also, in 2021, by way of filing a criminal miscellaneous petition but the same was withdrawn to take all averments at the stage of framing of charges.

Forfeiting 26 Yrs Of Constable's Service Over 15-Days Unsanctioned Leave Due To Medical Emergency Shocks Court's Conscience: Rajasthan HC

Title: Shyam Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 17

Rajasthan High Court has set aside the forfeiture of 26 years of service of a constable who went on unsanctioned leave of 15 days on account of illness, opining that the punishment was so excessive, grossly disproportionate and arbitrary that it shook the conscience of the Court and undermined the rehabilitative objective that a welfare state ought to follow.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga further opined that Rule 86(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (“1951 Rules”) should be applied judiciously, and forfeiture of past service of 26 years could not be done by a stroke of a pen in a mechanical manner. It held that disciplinary actions should not aim to terminate the employment rather than correct the same.

The Court further ruled that administrative decisions affecting employee's entire career must prioritize principle of least harm since excessive punishment ran the risk of creating a chilling effect where employees hesitate to report health issues or request leave fearing severe consequences.

Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Employee's Demotion From Post Held For 17 Years, Says Decision Rejecting Peer's Plea Seeking Same Relief Not In Rem

Title: Sunder Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 18

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside a 14-year-old order demoting a government employee from a post on which he served for 17 years, wherein the demotion was directed based on a judgment in a plea by a similarly situated counterpart who had also sought promotion but was denied noting that he wasn't entitled to it.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga opined that since there was no discussion of the petitioner's case in the other writ petition, no adverse consequences could be drawn onto the petitioner merely based on some observations regarding his promotion being erroneous made in passing reference.

S.498A IPC | Circular Barring Husband From Seeking Govt Employment Due To Wife's Pending Cruelty Case Violates Article 14, 21: Rajasthan HC

Title: Amrit Pal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 19

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside order rejecting candidature of the petitioner based on pending cruelty case under Section 498A IPC, ruling that at best the petitioner was "merely an under trial" and his fate is yet to be determined based on the trial's outcome.

Furthermore, the court noted that a mere break down of marriage could not be treated as if the husband was the "sole erring party" just because his wife pressed criminal charges against him which were yet to be proved.

Perusing the order rejecting the petitioner's candidature, Justice Arun Monga said, "Prima facie, having seen the impugned order dated 08.03.2024 which is being termed as a speaking order, it is anything but speaking. It does not clarify as to how the nature of pending criminal trial in any manner impeached the duties to be performed by the petitioner and/or how does it amount to a moral turpitude without there being any finding of facts and or criminal culpability. At best, the petitioner is merely an under trial and his fate is yet to be governed depending on the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, possibility of a compromise between husband and wife cannot be ruled out at subsequent stage. Be that as it may, mere break down of a marriage cannot be treated as if the husband is the sole erring party just because his wife has chosen to press criminal charges against him, which are yet to be proved".

Commercial Court Committed Jurisdictional Error By Imposing Pre-Condition To Deposit 50% Of Amount For Stay Against Arbitral Award: Rajasthan HC

Title: Jaipur Development Authority v. TPl-Sucg Consortium

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 20

The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that the Commercial Court has committed jurisdictional error in exercising its discretion arbitrarily, mechanically and injudiciously, while putting the condition to deposit 50% of the awarded amount, for operating stay against arbitral award without assigned justified and sound reasonings.

Additionally, the court modified the order in the manner that the stay order will become operative only after furnishing security in the form of FDR of a nationalised bank, equivalent to the 50% of the awarded amount, before the Commercial Court.

2013 Rape Case | Rajasthan High Court Grants Interim Bail To Asaram Bapu Till March 31 For Medical Treatment

Title: Asharam Alias Ashumal v/s State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 21

The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur bench) today granted interim bail till March 31 to self-styled godman Asaram Bapu, who is serving a life sentence in connection with a 2013 rape case. This order enables Asaram to walk out of jail for the first time since his arrest in 2013.

The order was passed by a bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur a week after the Supreme Court granted Bapu interim bail till March 31 to avail medical treatment.

The Top Court had granted him medical bail till March 31, 2025, enabling Asaram to undergo necessary treatment. The bench clarified that the relief was granted solely on humanitarian grounds and directed compliance with conditions imposed during the bail period. The Court also indicated that Asaram's medical status could be reassessed closer to the expiration of the bail term.

'Not Given Opportunity To Defend Himself': Rajasthan HC Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Advocate For Allegedly Using 'Undisciplined Language'

Title: Pallav Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 22

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed expunging of adverse remarks against an advocate, having a practice of more than 19 years, put on record by a division bench of the Court in its order in a criminal miscellaneous petition on the ground that the “petitioner misbehaved with the Court and used undisciplined language/words and failed to maintain the discipline of the Court and left the desk from the Court after showing tantrums and attitude”.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relief upon the Supreme Court case of Neeraj Garg vs. Sarita Rani and Others in which it was held that,

“While it is of fundamental importance in the realm of administration of justice to allow the judges to discharge their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by anyone, it is equally important for the judges to be exercising restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court… The Appellant whose professional conduct was questioned, was not provided any opportunity to explain his conduct or defend himself. The comments were also unnecessary for the decision of the Court. It is accordingly held that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the appellant's reputation or his work as a member of the Bar.”

Rajasthan High Court Declines To Interfere With Mother's Custody Of Children, Notes Their Wish To Not Stay With Their Father

Title: X v/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 23

While disposing of a habeas corpus petition filed by a father, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with the mother's custody over the two minor children, in view of the court's interaction with the children and their wish to not stay with their father.

A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta in its order observed,"Coming to the wish of the children, from interaction with the children, it is revealed that both the children do not wish to stay with petitioner-their father. Children are aged 11 and 12 years and even after they have remained in custody of petitioner, their wish is to stay with their mother-respondent No.5".

LIC Suffered No Loss, Gained More Business: Rajasthan HC Quashes Recovery Order Against Officer For Not Reporting Agent In Govt Service

Title: Padam Chand Prajapat v L.I.C and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 24

The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court quashed Life insurance Corporation of India's order (LIC) initiating recovery proceedings against its Development Officers in connection with the money generated by the business conducted by an agent who was not authorized to work for LIC as he was in government service.

Justice Arun Monga said, "Be that as it may, neither LIC has suffered any loss nor took any steps against the said Basti Ram Roj/agent, by filing an appropriate complaint before his employer that, while serving for the Government he violated his service rules by working as an agent. Not only this, it transpires that as far as Basti Ram's services as agent are concerned, he rather brought business to LIC. There is no gainsay to state that, being a commercial organization, LIC rather got more business through the agent. Therefore, it is rather intriguing as to why would LIC act against its own interest by taking action against a third party, who, if at all, was delinquent of violating service code with his employer".

Denying Regularization From Correct Date By Making Distinction Based On Initial Nature Of Work Arbitrary, Violates Art. 14, 16: Rajasthan HC

Title: Abdul Hamid v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 25

The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court quashed the State government's order, which did not regularize a man on the ground that his initial work on daily wages was different from his counterparts, terming the consideration as “irrelevant” and the actions of the State as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16.

Justice Arun Monga said, “The principle of equity warrants equal treatment for employees in comparable situations. However, the respondents appointed the petitioner as LDC effective from 16.01.1992, creating an arbitrary distinction without reasonable justification. This action amounts to hostile discrimination. Notably, the respondents admitted that counterparts were regularized under the same notification. Their argument that the petitioner's initial work on daily wages differs is irrelevant once the conditions for regularization were fulfilled. Denying regularization from the correct date infringes on the petitioner's rights to equal pay for equal work and protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and prohibit discrimination in employment”.

Rajasthan HC Permits Law Students To Sit For Exam To Govt Post, Who Were Barred Earlier After Change In Eligibility Criteria Mid Process

Title: Shivangi Pathak v The Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 26

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court granted relief to certain candidates who had applied for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer, directing the State to allow these candidates to appear for the examination to the Post even though at the time of filling the application form they had not passed their law degree.

Justice Arun Monga observed that the actions of the candidates were in consonance with the original advertisement for the post, the detailed guidelines provided on the website of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), as well as the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and the same could not have been changed by RPSC in the middle of the selection process.

Accused's Right To Fair Trial To Seek Call Detail Record U/S 91 CrPC In Trap Case Prevails Over Police's Right To Privacy: Rajasthan HC

Title: Narendra Kumar Soni v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 27

In case concerning trap proceedings, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the right of an accused to a free and fair probe/trial under Article 21 in seeking call/tower location details under Section 91 CrPC would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials.

The court added that this right of privacy can be breached to some extent for production of call details, to discover the truth and to ensure fairness towards all stakeholders.

Anoop Kumar Dhand said this in a plea challenging an order by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, which had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 91, CrPC, seeking preservation of the location of the mobile numbers of certain witnesses including the mobile number of the complainant and Investigation Officer along-with other members of the trap party.

Gratuity A Legal Right Not Bounty: Rajasthan HC Slaps ₹25K Fine On Engineering Institute For Frivolous Litigation Against Deceased Employee

Title: Jodhpur Institute of Engineering and Technology v Appellant Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 28

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court came down heavily upon the Jodhpur Institute of engineering and Technology for indulging in “frivolous and obstructive litigation” against its deceased employee and his wife in the matter of payment of gratuity ruling that it was not a bounty but a statutory right.

Justice Arun Monga also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the institute and held that the actions of the petitioner to relentlessly pursued this litigation against its terminally ill employee and thereafter his widow, displayed its lack of compassion.

"Trite it may sound, gratuity is not a bounty but a statutory right and delays in its payment are a serious violation. As a reputed educational institute, the petitioner has to be held to higher standards of accountability and responsibility. Their actions undermine their moral obligations and, no doubt, if not censured, would create an adverse precedent in similar institutions," the court added.

Rajasthan HC Directs Medical Reimbursement To Retired Govt Lecturer, Earlier Denied Due To Treatment At Unrecognized Private Hospital

Title: Sohan Lal Sharma v State Finance and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 29

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court recently granted relief to retired government lecturer who was denied medical reimbursement by the State in 2008, for his heart surgery pursuant to suffering a heart attack, on the ground that he had received treatment from a non-recognized private hospital.

Justice Arun Monga referred to a decision of a coordinate bench in Kanhaiya Lal Dave Versus State of Rajasthan which states:

“when a family member suffers from cardiac ailment, the prime objective of the other family member would be to save his/her life. At that time, services of whichever hospital is suited could be utilized because emergency knows no law and no procedure and when human life is at stake, in such situation, ultimate responsibility of the State cannot be washed off…Government cannot insist upon an employee to get himself treated at recognized government institution. All that the Government in these circumstances can do is to reimburse the concerned employee at the rates that may be applicable in the recognized government institution…consequently, the reimbursement of the medical expenses borne by the State Government employees and pensioners has to be done even if the treatment is undertaken at unrecognized hospital outside the State…”

Rajasthan HC Stays Suspension Of Govt Medical Officer Arrested For Allegedly Aiding In Forging Marksheet, Says He Was Not A Beneficiary

Title: Suresh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 30

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court recently granted interim relief to a government Medical Officer who had been suspended by the State, after he was arrested in a case for allegedly helping the principal accused in preparing a fabricated mark-sheet.

Justice Arun Monga said, "Given the sheer time lapse between the time when the petitioner was arrested and the time of passing the impugned order, coupled with the fact that, at this stage, petitioner is merely an under trial/ co-accused, since the trial has commenced after filing the chargesheet, his suspension may not be warranted.”

Only Chief Secretary/ Administrative Reforms Dept Can Direct Joint Inquiry Against Delinquents From Different Departments: Rajasthan HC

Title: Tulcha Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 31

In a case where two officers governed by two different departments and disciplinary authorities are booked by only one taking disciplinary action, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court said that in such a case only the Chief Secretary/competent authority of Administrative Reforms and Coordination Department can direct a joint inquiry under the relevant rules.

After considering the case Justice Dinesh Mehta said that "Direct answer to the question-which is the authority competent to pass such order under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1958 is not available under the CCA Rules, 1958. However, as per the Rajasthan Rules of Business, the department of Administrative Reforms and Coordination, headed by the Chief Secretary of the State is entrusted with the task of coordinating with other administrative departments. In the cases like the one in hands, when two delinquents whose disciplinary authorities are officers or Secretaries of different departments, then, it is the Chief Secretary or other competatnt authority of the Administrative Reforms and Coordination Department alone, who can pass an order under Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958"

Section 143A NI Act | Interim Compensation To Complainant In Cheque Bounce Case Introduced In 2018 Amendment Is Prospective: Rajasthan HC

Title: Rashmi Khandelwal v Kanhiyalal and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 32

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that Section 143A, Negotiable Instruments Act, inserted after an amendment in 2018 introducing payment of interim compensation to complainant in a cheque bouncing case, has prospective application and cannot be applied to complaints filed before the amendment in a retrospective manner.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relied upon the Supreme Court case of G.J. Raja v Tejraj Surana, thereafter said, "In the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.J. Raja (supra) it is clear that Section 143A of the Act of 1881 has its prospective effect and the same is applicable upon the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 after introduction/insertion of Section 143A of the Act of 1881 i.e. after 01.09.2018. This provision cannot have its retrospective effect upon the complaints filed prior to 01.09.2018. 26. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, these petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed".

Delay In Conducting Qualifying Exam By State Can't Be Attributed To Candidate: Rajasthan HC Directs Regularization Of Service From Prescribed Date

Title: Mamta Sharma v State and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 33

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a Lower Division Clerk whose services were regularized from a later date than the date of completion of her probation period owing to delay on part of the State in conducting the prescribed examination that was required to be cleared for such regularization.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that the petitioner was willing and available throughout for giving the prescribed typing test, however, the department failed to conduct the same within the stipulated timeline owing to delay in construction of computer labs, and preparation of syllabus, rules, and procedures.

Unsuccessful Candidate Can't Challenge Expert Opinion Later, Claiming That Self Assessment Showed His Answers To Be Correct: Rajasthan HC

Title: Kalyan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 34

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that an unsuccessful candidate cannot later challenge the opinion of experts on the ground that in their self assessment the candidate believes their answer to be correct going against the expert opinion.

In doing so the high court the dismissed an man's plea who could not qualify the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) exam, but had sought bonus marks or deletion of those questions that he could not attempt claiming that he was not provided with a steam table and psychometric chart.

Justice Arun Monga said, "Trite as it may sound, it is a settled position of law that a candidate, having remained unsuccessful, one cannot later challenge the opinion of the experts on the ground that, in their self-assessment, they believe their answer to be correct rather than what the experts have opined".

Rajasthan High Court Directs DM To Decide Within 4 Days Prisoner's Application For Parole To Support Wife During Child Birth

Title: Himmat Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 35

Rajasthan High Court has directed the District Magistrate, Dausa to decide a prisoner's application for grant of parole, for the purpose of his wife's delivery, within 4 days.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that as per Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 the application should have been decided within a period of 4 days from the date of receipt.

“Without any justified reason, the application filed by the petitioner has not been decided by the District Magistrate/ District Committee. Aforesaid act of the authorities is not in consonance with the mandatory provisions contained under Rule 23 of the Rule of 2021.”

Purpose Of S.82 CrPC Is To Secure Accused's Presence, Once Achieved Property Attachment Proceedings Must Be Dropped: Rajasthan HC Reiterates

Title: Gurdeep Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 36

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 82 CrPC is to secure the presence of the accused who is stated to be absconding, and once that purpose was achieved the proceedings are to be withdrawn.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel & Ors. (2008) wherein the apex court had held that the "purpose of initiating proceedings against the accused under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is to procure and secure the presence of the accused. Once the said purpose is achieved, the proceedings shall be withdrawn".

Rajasthan HC Makes Exception For Widow Declared Ineligible For Job For Having More Than 2 Children, Considers Her Socio-Economic Condition

Title: Sunita Dhawan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 37

While exercising its inherent powers, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to grant employment to a widow and a mother of four belonging to the SC category, who stood meritorious in the recruitment process to the post of school lecturer, but was denied employment for having more than two surviving children.

Justice Sameer Jain held that it was imperative to depart from the rigid procedural adherence in the interest of justice since the petitioner's exclusion merely on the ground of having more than 2 children, despite her socio-economic challenges, would violate constitutional guarantees provided under Articles 14 and 16.

Asking Nursing Officer With Advanced Stage Pregnancy To Serve 500 Kms Away From Residence Violative Of Her Right To Health: Rajasthan HC

Title: Jyoti Parmar v State Institute of Health and Family Welfare & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 38

Rajasthan High Court ruled that posting a 30-week pregnant woman 500 Kms away from her residence despite being 100s of vacancies near her home was highly arbitrary and mechanical exercise or non-exercise of mind that not only violated her right to health but also her right to safe working conditions as well as right to livelihood under Article 21.

“State is not only supposed to act as a model employer, but also as a virtuous litigant. Whereas, in the instant case, the approach adopted by the respondents instead is rather obstructive and oppressive in nature and a complete misuse of dominant status as an employer, apart from abuse of power, to say the least.”

Terming the actions of the State as lack of sensitivity and against very basic principles of being humane, the bench of Justice Arun Monga directed the State to assign the petitioner an alternative place for posting anywhere in her city and extended her date of joining till a decision was taken in this regard.

Yoga Not Recognized As 'Sport' By Ministry, No Bonus Marks For Selection As PT Instructor: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Sita Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 39

The bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition that challenged State's decision to not grant bonus marks provided for participation in Sports based on petitioner's certificate of Yoga, opining that in a notification dated December 21, 2016, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports clarified that since it was not feasible to hold any competitive sports tournaments for Yoga, it could not be termed as Sports.

“A perusal of the above clearly leaves no manner of doubt that even if the Yoga is categorized as Sports as is the assertion of the petitioners, even then no benefit of the same can be given to the petitioners since it is not feasible to hold any competitive sports tournaments of Yoga and thus in strict sense it cannot be termed as sports for the purpose of according benefit of bonus marks.”

Rajasthan HC Slams State For Transferring 8-Month Pregnant Officer 320 Km Away From Current Posting, Orders Sensitization Of Authority

Title: Sulochana v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 40

Terming the State's action in transferring an 8-month pregnant nursing officer 320 km away from her current posting as a display of "sheer apathy and callous disregard for basic human dignity", the Rajasthan High Court directed the Health Secretary to sensitize its officers empowered to pass transfer orders.

Justice Arun Monga referred to Section 4(3) of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961, which provides hat a pregnant woman, on request by her, could not be required to do any work by her employer which in any way was likely to interfere with her pregnancy or the normal development of the foetus or was likely to cause miscarriage or adversely affect her health. It was hearing the plea of a woman posted at Sikar in advanced stage of pregnancy challenging an order transferring her to Jodhpur–320 Kms away from her residence.

Seem To Be Passed In Great Haste: Rajasthan HC Tells State To Decide Afresh On Transfer Of 1116 Accounts Officers Ensuring Non-Arbitrariness

Title: Devendra Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 41

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to take a fresh call on the transfer of 1,116 Assistant Account Officers, who had alleged violation of a Finance Department circular as per which the officers could be transferred "only in special circumstances and in the interest of the state" before completing 4 years with sanction.

The court said this after noting the sheer number of officers who were transferred, at the first instance, indicated that the decision had been made in haste, adding that it was unclear what the special circumstances were which led to passing of such orders. The court also called for a balance between protecting officers from arbitrary action without undermining the authority's power to manage administrative exigencies.

Justice Arun Monga in its order said, "Adverting once again now to the impugned orders, from a reading thereof, it is not borne out as to which of the transferred officials had completed their four years, therefore, necessitating their transfer. Alternatively, nor is it clear which of the officials had to be transferred owing to the special circumstances. The sheer large number i.e. 1,116, in the first flush is indicative that the transfer orders have been passed in great haste. There was possibly no time with the competent officials to either determine the special circumstances qua each of them or to even have the empirical data available before them qua the length of their tenure on their current postings".

'Live-In Relationships Must Be Registered With Govt Authority Till Law Is Formulated To Govern Them': Rajasthan High Court

Title: X and Y v/s State of Rajasthan and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 42

Emphasizing that the need of the hour was for the Centre and State government to enact a legislation governing live-in relationships, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday directed, that till such a law is enacted, live-in-relationship must be registered by a government established authority or tribunal.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said, "The live-in-relationship agreement is liable to be registered by the Competent authority/ Tribunal, which is required to be established by the Government. Till enactment of the appropriate legislation by the Government, let competent Authority be established in each district of the State to look into the matter of registration of such live-in-relationships, who will address and redress the grievances of such partners/couples who have entered in such relationship and the children being born out therefrom. Let a Website or Webportal be launched in this regard for redressal of the issue arising out of such relationship".

The court further directed that until a legislation is framed by the Centre as well as the State Government, a scheme of statutory nature is required to be formulated in legal format.

“Land Belongs To Deity”: Rajasthan High Court Rejects 35-Yr Old Plea Challenging Re-Entry Of Temple Land In Revenue Records

Title: Roodaram & Ors. v the Board of Revenue & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 43

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed a 35-year-old plea against an order by which the Ajmer Revenue Board "re-entered" into the records, a land on which Shri Gopalji Temple is situated, underscoring that the land in question belongs to a deity–a minor who is precluded from availing legal remedies without human help.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan further said that based on provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, Khatedari or tenancy rights of a minor's land–the idol/deity of the temple in this case–cannot be conferred to a Khudkasht tenant–who is a person who cultivates the land owned by another, or sub-tenant whether their name was entered in records or not.

Rajasthan High Court Directs State Police To File Affidavit On Steps Taken Against 'Menace' Of Online Sale Of E-Cigarettes

Title: Priyansha Gupta v Union of India & Ors.

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has asked the State Police, specifically the officer-in-charge at the Police Headquarters who is handling the issue of online sale of e-cigarettes, to file an affidavit clearly stating what action has been taken so far against online platforms selling e-cigarettes.

While hearing a writ petition, the division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Uma Shanker Vyas observed, "from the contents of the petition, it is vividly clear that there is menace of online platform sale of e-cigarettes".

Calling for an affidavit on the matter the court further directed, "The affidavit is required to be filed by the officer-in-charge in police headquarter, who is dealing with issues relating to online sale of e-cigarettes and fully conversant with the steps which have been taken, action plan, if any, framed and also clearly state as to what action so far against online platforms selling e-cigarettes".

No Provision For Law Enforcement To Conduct Arrests Via Video Calls: Rajasthan HC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of 'Digital Arrest Scams'

Title: Suo Motu : In the matter of tackling the issue of 'Digital Arrest Scams', Cyber Crimes and saving the innocent people from loosing their money and lives

Terming “Digital Arrest scams” as one of the most insidious forms of cybercrime, Rajasthan High Court took suo motu cognizance of the increasing trend of cybercrimes in India including digital arrest, directing the State and Central Government to submit a report on the steps being taken to curb the offence.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that it was high time to spread awareness about digital arrests having no legal standing under the Indian laws as well as to educate people about the lawful process of arrests in India as well as the rights associated with it. The Court further observed that the RBI along with the Government was also required to develop a mechanism to stop payment transfer of money in such trap transactions.

Rajasthan HC Issues Notice On Plea Against Circular Classifying Transgender Persons As OBCs, Seeks Implementation Of Horizontal Reservation

Title: Ganga Kumari v State of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice on a petition challenging a 2023 Circular issued by the State, classifying transgender persons as Other Backward Classes (“OBCs”), instead of providing horizontal reservation to them.

The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Nupur Bhati asked the Respondent authorities, including State's Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Personnel and Rajasthan Public Service Commission, to file their response in four weeks.

Can Married Persons In Live-In Relationship With Others Seek Protection Orders? Rajasthan High Court Refers To Larger Bench

Title: X and Y v/s State of Rajasthan and Others

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday referred to a large bench to decide whether married persons who choose to be in live-in relationships with other individuals without first dissolving their marriage are entitled to seek protection orders from the court.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed the order after taking note of various judgments of the high court where conflicting views had been taken by single benches, observing that in such a situation the question has to be referred to a Special/Larger Bench so that the controversy is put to rest in accordance with law.

The question referred to special/larger bench is : "Whether a married person living with an unmarried person, without dissolution of his/her marriage or/and whether two married persons with two different marriages living in live-in-relationship, without dissolution of their marriages, are entitled to get protection order from the Court ?"

Rajasthan HC Stays State Bar Council Resolution Extending Tenure Of Bar Association Members, Appoints Interim Administrative Committee

Title: Sunil Vyas v Bar Council of Rajasthan & Ors

The Rajasthan High Court has admitted a petition challenging the resolution of the Bar Council of Rajasthan (“BCR”) dated April 16, 2024, which extended the tenure of the elected office bearers of the Bar Association from one year to two years. The court stayed the effect and operation of the resolution and appointed an Administrative Committee to manage the affairs of the Bar till final disposal of the petition.

The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman opined that on a prima facie level, it appeared that the amendment in the bye-laws based on the resolution was a blatant violation of Section 12 of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (“the Act”) that prescribed a procedure for such alterations in relation to societies.

Accordingly, as an interim order, the operation of the resolution passed by BCR to extend the tenure was stayed, and since the tenure of existing members of the Bar Association had come to an end, an Administrative Committee was appointed to manage the affairs of the Bar till final disposal of the case, comprising following members:

1. Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, Sr. Advocate

2. Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate

3. Mr. G.R. Poonia, Sr. Advocate

The petition was listed on March 17, 2025, for final hearing.