Rajasthan High Court
/
Rajasthan High Court Monthly...

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: November 2024

Nupur Agrawal

14 Dec 2024 12:00 PM IST

[Rajasthan Service Rules] Strong Reason Needed To Deny Extra-Ordinary Leave Of Employee Who Secured Admission In B. Ed. Course, Deposited Fees: HC

Title: Hemlata Choudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 329

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioner serving as a clerk in the office of the District and Sessions Judge whose application for extra-ordinary leave of two years for pursuing B.Ed. was rejected.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga relied upon an earlier case to affirm that even though leave could not be sought as a matter of right, but where the aspirant had already deposited fee after being granted admission, the leave rejection had to be on a very strong reason since the authority also did not have arbitrary power to refuse granting of leave.

Termination Without Due Process: Rajasthan High Court Directs Post-Retiral Benefits For Teacher Who Went On Unauthorised Leave Between 1995-1999

Title: Smt. Suman Lata Kapur v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 330

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a government teacher (“petitioner”) who went on unauthorized leave between 1995-1999, by directing that her termination due to willful absence, which was without due process of law, be treated as resignation and she be given post-retiral benefits for rendering 11 years of unblemished service.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali perused Rule 86 and aligned with the argument presented by the counsel for the petitioner. It observed that looking at the provisions of Rule 86, it was apparent that pursuant to the willful absence of the petitioner, the authorities had the power to interrupt the services including forfeiture of services; withheld pay and allowances for the period of willful absence; and/or initiate disciplinary action. However, it did not have the power to terminate the services of the petitioner.

The Court further held that as per Rule 86(3), if the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner resulted in a proven charge of willful absence, she could have been removed from service. However, this could be availed by the authorities only after affording reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for willful absence to the employee which was not followed by the authorities.

Election Tribunal's Discretion Under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules To Appoint Commissioner For Recording Evidence Is Enabling: High Court

Title: Anju Parihar v Looni Devi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 331

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled that Rule 85 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, did not prohibit the Election Tribunal from appointing a Court Commissioner for examining a witness because the discretion provided in proviso (b) to the Rule made the provision enabling and not prohibitory.

In doing so the bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur dismissed a plea moved against the election tribunal's order which had permitted to 72-year-woman who had challenged the petitioner's election, to record her evidence by way of a court commissioner as she was unwell.

No Separate Suit Allowed For Seeking Cancellation Of Consent Decree Alleged To Be Based On Compromise Obtained By Fraud: Rajasthan HC

Title: Umesh Kumar & Anr. v Lila Bai & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 332

Rajasthan High Court reiterated that despite Order 23, Rule 3A being a strong barrier to challenge the compromise decrees, if there was evidence of the compromise being obtained by deception or coercion, even though it cannot be pursued as an independent lawsuit, it could be brought within Section 151, CPC.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg relied upon the Supreme Court case of Ajanta LLP vs. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd. & another (“Ajanta LLP Case”) to observe that if the compromise decree was tainted with fraud, misrepresentation or mistake, the Court may use the inherent powers conferred under Section 151, CPC, to rectify the decree for alternations/modifications of the consent decree.

Condition Of Pre-Deposit U/S 148 Negotiable Instruments Act Can't Be Used To Jeopardise Convict's Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Asha Devi v Narayan Keer & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 333

Rajasthan High Court reiterated that Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should not be imposed in a situation where the condition of depositing 20% of the fine would amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of a person convicted under Section 138.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors . (2023) in which it was held that Section 148 should be given a purposive interpretation and where the court was satisfied that imposition of the condition would deprive the appellant of their right to appeal, exception could be made after recording reasons.

Trial Not Concluded Within 60 Days From Day Fixed For Recording Evidence: Rajasthan High Court Cites S.480 BNSS To Grant Bail In Cheating Case

Title: Banwari Lal Kushwah v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 334

Rajasthan High Court allowed the bail application of an accused charged under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, on grounds of Section 480(6) BNSS, since the trial did not conclude within sixty days from the date fixed for taking evidence in the case and the accused was in custody for more than two years.

The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena perused the facts of the case and highlighted that the first date for recording evidence was fixed on 14/06/2024 and the period of 60 days ended on 13/08/2024. Furthermore, the accused was in custody for more than two years now.

Rajasthan High Court Holds Arbitral Award To Be Patently Illegal Due To Concealment Of Material Facts, Violation Of HC Order

Title: State Of Rajasthan v. M/s Atlanta Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 335

The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar held that it was the bounden duty of the respondent to apprise the Arbitral Tribunal about the dismissal of the writ petition. Non-disclosure of the same, tantamount to grave misconduct on part of the respondent.

Additionally, the court observed that the use of the word 'however' does not mean that the decision that Steering Group had no jurisdiction to extend the concession period becomes redundant. The Arbitral Tribunal held that the decision of the Steering Group for extension of concession is binding on the parties. The same being contrary to the judgment passed by the High Court is patently illegal.

No Exclusive & Conscious Possession Of Contraband: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Woman Who Only Accompanied NDPS Accused In Same Car

Title: Muskan v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 336

Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a woman charged under the NDPS Act after she was found sitting with the primary accused in the car from which 77 Kg of contraband was recovered.

The bench the of Justice Farjand Ali took into account the plea of the petitioner that she was not having exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband, and was merely accompanying the primary accused in the car without having any knowledge regarding the presence of the contraband in the car.

The Court also highlighted that nowhere in the charge sheet it was revealed that either the petitioner was having any knowledge of the contraband in the car or she was in contact with any of the other co-accused other than the primacy accused in the case.

Income Tax Return Is Statutory Document, Holds Precedence Over Salary Certificate When Determining Compensation Under MV Act: Rajasthan HC

Title: Smt. Sudha & Ors. v Prakash Chandra & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 337

Rajasthan High Court affirmed that if there are two documents for ascertaining the income of the deceased including a salary certificate from his/her employer and his/her Income Tax Returns (“ITR”), the latter shall be considered by the Court since these are statutory documents signed by the deceased himself/herself.

Aligning with the arguments of the counsel of the respondent-insurance company, the bench of Justice Nupur Bhati held that out of the two documents produced before the Court, the ITR was a statutory document for the purpose of determining the income of the deceased. The Court also made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Meenakshi v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to back this opinion and held that,

“This Court finds that the ITR (Ex.26), which is statutory document, is required to be considered for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased, which is inclusive of perquisites and allowances, in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”

Civil Service Rules | Suspension Ordinarily 'Preventive' But Suspension Over Trivial Allegations At Previous Posting 'Punitive': Rajasthan HC

Title: Prakash Mali v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 338

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the suspension order passed under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1951 (“the Rules”) is not punitive in nature but preventive as a precaution against employee influencing or hampering the course of inquiry or tempering with the material related to it.

However, suspending an employee over trivial allegations of misconduct, that too at his previous place of posting, is punitive.

“The provision of placing an employee under suspension is not punitive but preventive. As a precaution that the employee may not influence/hamper the course of inquiry or temper with the material related to it; an order under Rule 13 can be passed, however when the alleged misconduct is of a trivial nature and that is relatable to his previous place of posting which is around 700 kms away from his present place of posting still passing an order of suspension seems to be punitive instead of a preventive one.”

Preferential Treatment In Selection Based On Present Place Of Posting Discriminatory, Violates Right To Equality: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Mohan Lal Sharma & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. and other connected petitions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 339

Rajasthan High Court ruled that Rajasthan Government's decision to grant bonus marks in teacher selection exam to those opting for posting in the districts in which they were currently posted in government employment was not only against the statutory rules but also violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that such a rule created class of un-equals amongst equals which was not justified. State could not create artificial classification which results in discrimination between two equals and similarly situated persons. It amounted to impermissible discrimination since there was no rational basis for such preferential treatment.

It was highlighted that it was a settled principle that if there was a conflict between the terms and conditions of any advertisement and the Rules and Regulations of service and appointment, the provision contained under the Rules or Regulations shall prevail.

'Bhangi', 'Neech', 'Bhikhari', 'Mangani', Not Caste Names: Rajasthan High Court Drops Charges Under SC/ST Act

Title: Achal Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 340

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court dropped charges under the SC/ST Act against four men accused of using words like 'Bhangi', 'Neech', 'Bhikhari', 'Mangani' while addressing certain individuals, ruling that these words were not caste names and neither was there an allegation that the four men knew the castes of the latter.

In doing so the bench of Justice Birendra Kumar also observed that the police after the investigation had not found the allegation as true. The court however said that criminal prosecution for allegedly obstructing public servants discharging their public duty would go on.

First Firearm 'Difficult To Carry Due To Big Size' Not Ground To Seek License For Another Weapon: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Brijesh Kumar Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 341

The Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with competent authority's order rejecting a man's application for a second gun license which was sought on the ground that the first licensed gun that he possessed, a 12 bore gun, was too heavy for him to carry.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the right to bear arms was completely different in India as compared to this right in the United Stated of America (“USA”) and United Kingdom (“UK”). It was held that no one had a fundamental right to keep a weapon especially when in today's times its possession had become more of a “show off” and a “status symbol” rather than for self defence.

Difficult To Conclude If Accused Were Onlookers Or Real Culprits: Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To Men Accused Of Attacking Religious Procession

Title: Mujammil Sher & Ors. v State of Rajasthan and other connected appeals

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 342

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to several men accused of beating, throwing stones and using casteist slurs at members of a religious procession, noting that it was difficult to conclude whether the men were mere onlookers or the real culprits especially since there was no similar case pending against them.

After hearing the contentions a single bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur in its order said, "Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the investigation in relation to the cross FIRs is being conducted by the Investigating Agency. Prima facie there is a version and a cross-version of the incident which occurred on 14.09.2024".

Rajasthan HC Permits Woman Booked In Criminal Case To Return Abroad For Studies, Prevent Revocation Of Her Daughter's Foreign Citizenship

Title: Jasvindra Kaur v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 343

Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition filed by a women accused in a Cheating case, seeking permission to get back her passport and return to Canada to finish her studies and also prevent the revocation of her daughter's Canadian citizenship for staying in another nation for more than 180 days.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that the Petitioner was not convicted for the alleged crime and the investigation was still going on. Hence, at this stage it would not be justified to deny her permission to pursue her studies as her future prospects depend on it. The Court also took into account the fact that the failure on her part to return to Canada on time might result in revocation of her daughter's Canadian citizenship.

NEET | Merit Exclusive Criteria To Allocate College, Technical Formalities Can't Frustrate Fundamental Rights Of Meritorious Candidates: Rajasthan HC

Title: Kanchan Kumawat v Union of India & Ors, and other related petitions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 344

Rajasthan High Court directed the Centre and the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) to consider the candidature of petitioners for allocation of collages based on their merits in NEET UG 2024 (“NEET”) which was rejected by the Centre on the grounds that the petitioners were not able to submit certain affidavit/ certificates in the prescribed format on time.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that firstly, the allocation process was conducted in between the period of holidays on account of Diwali, 2024 and in that too, the time period provided to the candidates for submitting the documents was very less. Secondly, it was opined that the merit scored by the petitioners should be the exclusive criteria for allocation of collages and the fundamental rights of meritorious petitioner ought not be frustrated due to technical formalities.

Cannot Compute Income Of 18-Yr-Old Accident Victim Based On Wages Of Unskilled Labour, Wages Of Semi-Skilled Labour To Be Considered: Rajasthan HC

Title: Smt. Gurvinder Kaur v Bhanwara Ram & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 345

In an appeal filed against an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court held that irrespective of there being no evidence on record to show that the deceased was employed, computing the income of an 18 year old based on minimum wages of an unskilled labour was unjustified.

In doing so the bench of Justice Rekha Borana further underscored that the computation should have been made based on wages of a semi-skilled labour.

Rajasthan High Court Lifts Stay Order On Conduct Of State Dental Council Elections

Title: Rajasthan State Dental Council, Jaipur, RUHS College of Dental Sciences v Lalit Jeila and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 346

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman at the Rajasthan High Court allowed the special appeal filed by the Rajasthan State Dental Council, Jaipur, RUHS College of Dental Sciences (“RUHS”) against an order passed by the Single Judge wherein the election process to the Rajasthan State Dental Council commenced pursuant to the Election notification was stayed.

After hearing both the sides, the Court highlighted that it was an admitted fact that the respondent had not signed the nomination papers physically in front of the RO along with the proposers but the same were sent by post.

The Court opined that if the nomination forms were physically presented, signed by the respondent and both the proposers in the presence of the RO, the mismatch of second proposer's signature between the nomination from and on that of his membership form would have not been significant.

[Rajasthan Police Service Rules] Penalty Of Censure Cannot Come In Way Of Promotion Where Criteria For Is Seniority-Cum-Merit: High Court

Title: Dinesh Kumar Mathur v the State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 347

Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that a penalty of censure is not an impediment in promotion where the selection criteria to the post is not solely based on merit but also has a component of seniority in it.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali perused the matter and referred to the Shri Ram Khilari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others in which it was held that,

“even if there existed any minor penalty or some minor adverse remark here and there, promotion could not be denied to the appellant because the criteria for promotion in this case as not entirely merit based but was on 'seniority-cum-merit' where seniority has to be given more weightage is compared to merit. In that criteria, even penalty of censure could not be a ground to deny promotion to the appellant because what is to be seen is minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration and in that view of the matter, a senior person, even though less meritorious, shall have primacy in the matter of promotion and comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made.”

Only State Govt Can Decide If Services Of Particular Employee Is Required: Rajasthan HC Nixes Contractual Dental Medical Officers' Plea

Title: Dr. Jindal Jain & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 348

Rejecting a plea moved by Medical Officers (Dental) engaged by the state government on a contractual basis whose services were terminated, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled that it was the government's domain to decide on employment of particular person working in it.

In doing so the bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that engagement of petitioners was purely on urgent temporary basis and the extension of their engagement was done based on the requirement of their services by the State Government who was solely competent to take that decision which could not be substituted by the Court.

The Court further rejected the parity argument of the counsel for the petitioners opining that the duties performed by the Medical Officers were not similar to the duties performed by the Medical Officers (Dental) and therefore, the State could take a decision to continue the engagement of former while releasing the latter whose services were no longer required.

Collector Cannot Cyclostyle Anti-Corruption Bureau's Draft To Sanction Prosecution, Must Apply Independent Mind: Rajasthan HC

Title: Hairsh Chandra Bunkar v Board of Revenue & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 349

Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the grant of sanction for prosecution is not a mere formality and that a sanctioning authority is obligated to discharge its duty after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case.

The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Rekha Borana further held that the sanction must be observed with complete strictness, keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.

The Court referred to the case of Manish Mathur v State of Rajasthan in which on similar factual scenario, it was held that the ACB could have communicated all relevant facts on the basis of which the prosecution sanction could have been granted, but in no case, the Bureau could have instructed for grant of prosecution sanction under a proposed and drafted document.

Preposterous To Assume Judges Can't Commit Mistake While Passing Orders: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Compulsory Retirement Of ADJ After 9 Yrs

Title: Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 350

Rajasthan High Court set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon an Additional District and Sessions Judge in 2015 for allowing the second bail application filed by a murder accused, despite having knowledge of the fact that the first bail application was rejected by the High Court and there was a pending transfer petition in front of the High Court.

The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that the Enquiry Judge did not find any material to conclude that the order passed in the 2^nd bail petition was actuated by corrupt motive.

The Court highlighted the spirit and importance of inquiry report and the duty of the inquiry officer and opined that an inquiry officer was not a prosecutor who had to assume that the delinquent employee was guilty of misconduct. Instead, an inquiry officer needed to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case as a rational and prudent man and draw his conclusions based on proper reasoning and logic.

Unless Appointment Of Arbitrator Under Arbitration Clause Is Ex-Facie Valid, Jurisdiction Of Court U/S 11(6) Cannot Be Barred: Rajasthan HC

Title: Surendra Sarda S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Sharda Versus Shri Maheshwari Samaj and Ors.

Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Raj 351

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal affirmed that unless the appointment of the arbitrator is ex facie valid and such appointment satisfies the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, acceptance of such appointment as a fait accompli to debar the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) cannot be countenanced in law.

Referral Court Has Limited Role U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act To Verify Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Rajasthan High Court

Title: PME Power Solutions (India) Ltd.Versus Airen Metals Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Raj 352

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal affirmed that the scope of arbitration application, in view of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is confined and limited to the extent of examining the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties for resolution of dispute.

The court also observed that an impression has been created that section 11(6A) has been omitted through Amendment Act of 2019. However, that part has not been notified yet therefore it is still in operation as observed by the Supreme Court in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 And the Indian Stamp Act, 1989 (2024)

The court further noted that as far as contention of the learned counsel for non-applicant that the claim of applicant has extinguished on account of approval of the CIRP plan by the NCLT, Jaipur vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 and the claim does not survive at all, it was observed that such contention touches to merits of the claim, which can be considered and examined by the Arbitrator.

S.233 BNSS | Subsequent FIR On Same Allegations Not Barred But Magistrate Shall Stay Further Proceedings In Pending Complaint: Rajasthan HC

Title: Ram Chandra Bisu & Ors. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 353

Rajasthan High Court ruled that Section 233 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 leaves no doubt that even if complaint proceedings are already undergoing in relation to particular allegations and facts, and the police officials receive a report/compliant on the same set of facts, they are not barred from registering an FIR on those facts.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga added that the only mandatory procedure was that the Magistrate shall stay the further proceedings in the complaint case that was instituted prior to registration of the FIR, to await for the outcome of the inquiry/investigation.

Collector's Reference Made After Delay Of Over 3 Years Invalid In Law: Rajasthan HC Quashes Order Mutating Land Entries In Deity's Favour

Title: Ram Chandra & Ors. v The Board of Revenue & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 354

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed a Collector's 20-year-old reference order pertaining to a land parcel which said that as the land belonged to a deity–Doli Mandit Shri Thakur Ji Purohita, it could not have been recorded in the name of the original owner, from whom the petitioners had subsequently purchased the land.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta also set aside the Board of Revenue's order which set aside the mutation entries of a land belonging to the certain persons (petitioners), who had purchased the land from the original owner's son, while the Collector's reference was pending. In doing so the court reiterated that reference made after a delay of over three years is invalid in law.

Prior Consent Of State Under Rajasthan Colonization Act Which Ceased In 1991, Not Mandatory For Sale Deed Executed In 2003: Rajasthan HC

Title: LRs. of Dalip Singh and Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 355

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed an order which had declared the sale of a land to the petitioners' predecessor-in-title (purchasers) 21-years-ago void on the ground that the seller had not taken State's permission before sale as required under the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.

In doing so Justice Dinesh Mehta said that merely because the petitioner's predecessors in title–either due to illiteracy or ignorance of law–failed to obtain prior consent, the rights which have accrued in favour of the purchasers (petitioner/predecessors of the petitioners) cannot be set at zero, over 20 years after the sale. It further said that the Act ceased to operate in 1991 and so consent of the state government was not required.

Rajasthan HC Orders Compensation For Death Of Borrower Of Vehicle In Accident, Says He Stepped Into Owner's Shoes & Was Covered By Insurance

Title: Smt. Abida & Ors. v Ayub Khan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 356

Faced with conflicting Supreme Court decisions, Rajasthan High Court granted compensation to the claimants of a deceased affirming that in cases where the deceased was driving/ riding a borrowed vehicle, he/she steps into the shoes of the owner and thus shall be entitled for compensation towards personal accident cover as per contract of insurance in case premium was charged from the owner for personal accident cover.

The counsel for the appellants relied on the Supreme Court case of Ram Khiladi v the United India Insurance Company (“Ram Khiladi Case”) in which the Apex Court had awarded Rs. 1 Lakh to the deceased/ borrower of the vehicle on account of premium charged towards the personal accident cover of the owner.

The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati made a reference to another Supreme Court case of Ningamma Anr. v United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (“Ningamma Case”) in which the Supreme Court held,

“…borrower steps into the shoes of the owner, when borrows his vehicle and that, he virtually becomes the owner at the time of driving the vehicle, thus, the owner cannot be a recipient of the compensation as the liability to pay the same is upon him.”

No Error In Rejecting Application For Suit Dismissal Filed On Grounds Of Undervaluation Of Suit Or Insufficient Court Fee: Rajasthan HC

Title: Premraj v LRs of Rehmat & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 357

Rajasthan High Court rejected a petitioner' challenge to Civil Judge's order of rejecting his application for dismissal of suit, under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, filed on the ground that the suit was undervalued and filed after paying insufficient court fees.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg ruled that even if there was undervaluation or payment of insufficient court fee, the trial court may consider this objection at the final stage of the suit and hence, no error was committed by the Civil judge in rejecting petitioner's application for dismissal of the suit solely on this ground.

Valuation Of A Suit Is Based On Nature Of Relief Claimed, Not On Market Value Of Property: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

Title: Smt. Vijay Lakshmi & Ors. v Madhav Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 358

While hearing a dispute concerning sale of a property, the Jodhpur Rajasthan High Court reiterated that it was only the nature and valuation of the relief claimed on the basis of which the valuation of the suit as well as the court fee was determined and not the market value of any property.

Justice Rekha Borana said, "In the specific opinion of this Court, the suit in question had rightly been valued for an amount of Rs.23 lakhs and the Court fee as paid on the said valuation was sufficient and in terms of law. As is the settled position of law, it is the nature of the relief claimed which becomes the basis for the valuation of a suit. A suit is always to be valued on the reliefs as claimed. The market value of any property cannot be a decisive factor for valuation of the suit. It is only the nature and the valuation of the relief claimed, on basis of which, the valuation of the suit is to be determined and the Court fee is to be paid".

Removal From Service For Submitting Forged Marksheet Disproportionate For Constable With Unblemished Record Of 38 Yrs: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Prithvi Raj v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 359

Rajasthan High Court set aside the punishment of removal from service against a constable (“Petitioner”) who was charged for submitted a forged marksheet at the time of entering the service, ruling that given the unblemished record of 38 years of service of the Petitioner, and the nature of the misconduct, the punishment was disproportionate and excessive.

The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur aligned with the arguments presented on behalf of the Petitioner and highlighted that the Petitioner had served the department with utmost zeal for such a long time. Hence, it was opined that the punishment awarded to him was disproportionate, excessive and not commensurate with the misconduct committed by him.

REET | If One Agency Of State Govt Declares Candidate Eligible, Another Govt Agency Can't Declare Him Ineligible: Rajasthan High Court

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 360

Rajasthan High Court ruled that once an agency of the State Government i.e. the Board of Education had certified a candidate to have passed REET Level-I examination, it was not open for another agency i.e. the Education Department to reject the candidature opining that he did not pass the exam.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that REET was merely a qualifying test and if a candidate was fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed by the State, there was no reason for the Government to deny consideration of his candidature on the ground that he did not attain the minimum required marks in REET especially when a certificate was issued to the candidate declaring him eligible for Level-I.

Denial Of Opportunity For Not Getting 'Honourable' Acquittal In Criminal Case Against Principle Of Reintegration Into Society: Rajasthan HC

Title: Shankar Lal v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 361

Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the Superintendent of Police rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner for the post of the Constable on the grounds that his acquittal in an FIR registered against him was not honourable, but due to lack of evidence.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga ruled that an acquittal was an acquittal, on whatever ground, which restored the Petitioner's status as a law-abiding citizen. It was held that denying appointment to the petitioner solely due to FIR in which he was acquitted amounted to punishing him and was against the principle of reintegration of that individual into society.

Principle Of Res-Judicata Not Applicable To Reliefs Of Alimony, Stridhan Which Can Be Claimed At Any Subsequent Stage: Rajasthan High Court

Title: X v Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 362

Applying the Golden Rule for purposive interpretation of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the Doctrine of Res Judicata is not applicable on the reliefs of permanent alimony and stridhan as provided in the provision.

In doing so the court underlined that res judicata is not applicable since the reliefs sought under Section 25 could be claimed "at any subsequent stage" as well and could be granted by any Court having jurisdiction under the Act. By way of this ruling the high court underscored that when it comes to welfare provisions like Section 25, the golden rule of interpretation ensures that laws designed to "uplift vulnerable populations are applied in a way that reflects their true intent".

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman in its order said that Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act (pertaining to Permanent alimony and maintenance) was a social welfare legislation for securing the rights of women and thus it was Court's duty to advance this cause of social justice by interpreting it in light of its purpose.

Class 10 Marksheet Is A Public Document, Credible And Authentic As Proof Of Birth: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Jagdigh Prasad v Arvind Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 363

Upholding the election tribunal's decision disqualifying a man from the post of Sarpanch as he had two additional children after cut off date, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that matriculation certificate (Class 10 mark sheet) is a public document and is credible and authentic as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand court said, was especially in light of the fact that the birth dates appearing in the Class 10 Mark sheets had attained finality as the same had not been challenged.

In Public Function Matters Like Electricity Supply No Ex Parte Stay Must Be Given, Vacation Plea Must Be Decided Expeditiously: Rajasthan HC

Title: Rajasthan Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors. v Somi Conveyors Beltings Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 364

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled that in matters that affect supply of public services like electricity to the consumers in the State, ordinarily ex-parte interim order ought not to be granted, and even if it was granted, the application for vacating the stay is required to be considered expeditiously.

In doing so, the division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar observed that procurement of conveyor belts–which it noted had been delayed by six months, is absolutely essential to ensure continuous supply of coal leading to production of electricity and uninterrupted supply thereof to the consumers in the State. It said that it was unfortunate that the appellant which carried out "public functions" had to run from pillar to post just to get his plea for vacation of stay considered.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes SC/ST Act Case Against Actress Shilpa Shetty For Using Word "Bhangi" In 2013 Interview

Case: Shilpa Raj Kundra v State of Rajasthan.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 365

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a complaint against the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) against actress Shilpa Shetty for using the word "Bhangi" in a 2013 Television interview.

Justice Arun Monga held: "In light of the absence of essential ingredients for offenses under Section 153A IPC, the failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements under Section 196 Cr.P.C., and the lack of applicability of the SC/ST Act, the FIR is patently illegal and deserves to be quashed. The allegations neither substantiate the statutory elements of the cited offenses nor provide any basis for criminal proceedings against the Petitioner."

Can't Make Party Suffer For Counsel's Non-Appearance Or Failure To Make Alternate Arrangement For Appearance: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Phoolaram v Bajranglal & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 366

While hearing a writ petition, Rajasthan High Court upheld an order of the trial court that set aside an ex-parte decree against the respondents on the ground that the counsel of the respondents had underwent eye surgery and thus owing to his health conditions, he was not able to make an appearance before the court for the proceedings.

The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati held that merely because the counsel failed to make alternative arrangements for his appearance, the respondents could not be made to suffer for the same as that would not be in the interest of justice.

Rampant For Political Rivals To Drag Opponents In Case To Ruin Political Career: Rajasthan HC Asks SP To Monitor Probe In FIR Against Sarpanch

Title: Om Prakash v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 367

In a plea for quashing an FIR filed against a Sarpanch, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed the Superintendent of Police (SP) to personally monitor the investigation observing that in an era where it was rampant for political rivals to drag their opponents in a case to damage their political career it was appropriate to direct the police to conduct an impartial probe.

Justice Farjand Ali in its order said, "Prima facie, this Court feels that since a bare perusal of the FIR revealing commission of cognizable offence and the investigation has to be conducted; however, at the same time, it is felt that in present era, when it is rampant in between the political rivalries to drag the name of their opponent in a case with an oblique object to get damage to their political career and, thus, it is deemed appropriate to disposed of this criminal misc. petition with a direction to the police to conduct fair, impartial and expeditious investigation in this matter”.

State Must Conclude Land Acquisition Within 'Reasonable Time' After Barring Construction U/S 27 Rajasthan Housing Board Act: High Court

Title: Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. v Kuldeep & Anr. and other connected appeals

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 368

Rajasthan High Court ruled that notification under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 barring construction on a proposed scheme area affects the right to enjoyment of property of landowners and thus, it cannot be allowed to block the property for an indefinite period.

The division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that after issuing the notification, the Housing Board and the State Government are obliged to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings expeditiously and conclude the same within a reasonable period.

Person Holding Relevant Evidence To Dispute Not 'Necessary Party' Unless Compelled By Law: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

Title: Satay Narayan Gaur v Smt. Anjana & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 369

Rajasthan High Court reiterated that merely because a person was holding some relevant evidence to present on the questions involved in a dispute, that in itself would not make that person a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit.

The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati further relied upon the principle of dominus litis, to reject defendant's challenge against order of trial court that dismissed her application to implead certain parties in plaintiff's suit for possession and permanent injunction, and held that since the suit was initiated by the plaintiff, he, being the dominus litis, could not be forced to add parties against whom he did not want to contest unless there was compulsion of law.

LOC's Initial Validity Can't Exceed 4 Weeks, Originating Agency Must Give Reasons For Seeking Extension: Rajasthan HC Issues Guidelines

Title: Abhayjeet Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 370

While laying down guidelines which are to be followed by concerned authorities/agencies for causing the issuance/continuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC), the Rajasthan High Court said that an order passed by the originating agency issuing an LOC must "specifically state" that it is valid only for four weeks.

Extension of the LOC is permitted only if the originating agency provides reasons in writing, the court underscored.

Justice Arun Monga passed the order while hearing a plea moved by a man challenging the LOC issued by the Bureau of Immigration under instructions of the Police officials (Office of Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan) pursuant to lodging of the FIR in a matrimonial dispute.

Adverse Police Verification Report Doesn't Per Se Disentitle Citizen From Legal Right To Have A Passport: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Savitri Sharma v Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 371

Rajasthan High Court held that adverse police verification report per se could not dis-entitle a citizen from his legal right to have a passport.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the decision of issuing a passport or travel documents has to be taken by the Passport Authority alone and they cannot refuse such issuance without application of mind, solely because of an adverse police report.

Provisional Attachment Ceases After One Year: Rajasthan High Court Allows Assessee To Operate Bank Account

Title: M/s Sunshine Exim v. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence Jaipur Zonal Unit

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 372

The Rajasthan High Court stated that the provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act ceases after one year and cannot be attached again without giving fresh reasons.

The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar directed the Punjab National Bank to allow the assessee to operate its bank account unless the attachment of the account is in respect of some proceedings other than the one in connection with which order of attachment was earlier passed on 26.06.2023.

Rajasthan Civil Services Rules | Apprehension Of Inquiry Taking Long Time Not Ground To Ward Off Disciplinary Inquiry U/S 19: High Court

Title: Dinesh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 373

Rajasthan High Court ruled that the possibility of disciplinary inquiry taking a long time could not be a reason to invoke Section 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 and do away with the inquiry.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta also observed that the apprehension of the employee influencing or tampering with the evidence reflected Department's lack of confidence in its own system.

Litigants Can't Suffer For Advocate's Bona-Fide Mistake: Rajasthan HC Restores Appeal Dismissed For Failure To Serve Notice On Respondent

Title: Ajeet Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected petition

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 374

Rajasthan High Court ruled that sometimes bonafide mistake could be committed by the counsel for a litigant by not furnishing the requisite notices upon the opposite party, however, instead of applying a hyper-technical approach and rejecting the case, justice oriented approach should be applied.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta opined that it was held in multiples cases by the Supreme Court that the litigants could not be made to suffer for the fault of the advocate.

Trial Court Erred In Closing Evidence Upon Refusal Of Accused's Counsel To Enter Appearance: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside POCSO Conviction

Title: Angad v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 375

Rajasthan High Court set aside the conviction of a man (appellant) convicted by the Special POCSO Court on the grounds that when the appellant's counsel refused to appear, instead of appointing an Amicus Curiae at that instance, the trial court closed the evidence.

The division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta observed that if a counsel refused to appear for the accused, it was bounden duty of the Court to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.

Inquiry Proves Genuineness Of Certificates, Rajasthan High Court Cancels Termination Of Services Of Safai Karamcharis

Title: Pawan Lakhan versus The State Of Rajasthan & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 376

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal while allowing a batch of Petitions observed that the Safaikaramcharis whose appointment was cancelled due to the allegations of having produced false certificates before the authorities should be allowed to continue in service, counting their service from the date of appointment with all consequential benefits. The Bench held that since the inquiry suggested contrary to the allegations, the termination orders stood defeated.

Reservation Demand For Wards Of Gallantry Awardee Military Personnel, Rajasthan High Court Rejects Claim

Title: Kailash Choudhary versus Chairman, Neet

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 377

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sameer Jain of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging the policy by under which the wards of Gallantry Award recipients were not included in the categories of reservation contrary to the policy in place in the year 2021. The Court held that it could not extend its powers of judicial review as the policy makers had applied their mind while enlisting the categories.

'Nerve Shocking': Rajasthan HC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of Deteriorating Health Services In State, Says Hospitals Can't Play With Lives

Title: Suo Motu: In the Matter of Right to Health and Well Being of Everyone

The Rajasthan High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the deteriorating condition of public health care system including gross negligence on part of hospitals in the State and has called upon the Union as well as State Ministry to submit a report on effective steps being taken for improving the present health care system.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that even though Fundamental Right to Health was not officially recognized by the Constitution of India, Right to Dignity which was included in the Right to Life under Article 21 extended to Right to Health and medical aid. Furthermore, various Articles in the Constitution were included as DPSPs like Article 38, 41 and 47 indicating Government's constitutional obligation to provide health care facilities to the general public at large.

Rajasthan High Court Impleads Then Jodhpur Collector, SDO, Tehsildar In Encroachment Case; Warns Of Jail Sentence If Orders Aren't Followed

Title: Mahesh Kumar Pal v Mr. T. Ravikanth & Ors.

In a contempt matter concerning encroachment of land, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed the petitioner to implead the then concerned Collector, Sub-divisional Officer and Tehsildar to seek their stand, warning them of punishment including "jail sentence" if they don't pay heed to court orders.

The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a contempt petition filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Court on February 7, 2022 by the District Collector, Jodhpur who also happened to be the Chairman of Public Land Protection Cell, Jodhpur constituted by the Court in its order dated January 30, 2019.

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: November 2024

Nupur Agrawal

Tags