Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations: 82 - 114]

Chitranshi Goyal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 82

Prakash Chand Saini v. State Of Rajasthan; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 83

Bhagwati Singh (Since Deceased) S/o (Late) Shri Raja Mansingh v. Raja Laxman Singh S/o (Late) Shri Raja Mansingh and connected matter; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 84

Karma Ram v. The Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, through its Secretary; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 85

Vinod Sharma v. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 86

M/s B.r. Construction Company Versus Additional Director; 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 87

Gajendra Purbia & Anr. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 88

Sawai Singh Sodha & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 89

Dharmender Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 90

Shri Labana Gawaria Sikh Samaj Sewa Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 91

G.k. Construction Company, Through Its Owner Govind Katariya v. Balaji Makan Samagri Stores, Through Its Proprietor Mallaram Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 92

Bot Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 93

Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 94

Nisha v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 95

Chandrakant Jain v. Veermati Jain 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 96

Ajit Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 97

Anju Boyal v. Ravindra Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 98

Mahesh Swami v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 99

Sita Devi Educational Society, Bhilwara & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 100

Prem v. Amar Jeet Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 101

Rajasthan Housing Board through Dy. Housing Commissioner & Resident Engineer v. Legal Representatives of deceased plaintiff Mani Ram 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 101

Jaipur Texweaving Park Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 102

Ramratan Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 104

Smt Meena v. State, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 105

Salman Khan v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 106

Rahul Katara v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 107

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director & Ors. v. Udai Singh Kumawat 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 108

Nand Kishore & Anr. v. Saleem Khan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 109

Ratan Devi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 110

T.C. Gupta v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 111

Sohan Singh Rao Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 112

Pacific Industries Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 113

Lakshya Purohit v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 114

Judgments/ Orders of the Month

1. Sale Deed Shall Operate From Date of Execution If No Registration Thereof Had Been Made & Not From Time of Its Registration: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Chitranshi Goyal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 82

The Jaipur bench of Rajasthan High Court, while relying on Sections 23, 47 and 74 of Registration Act, 1908, reiterated that registration of sale deed shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.

Justice Sameer Jain, while allowing the plea, ruled,

"The prayers made by the petitioner in the present writ petition appear to be justified and the impugned action of the respondents communicated by them to the petitioner vide their letter/email dt.13/03/2019 in not considering the case of the petitioner for retail outlet under Group-1 is held to be unjustified. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet under the category of Group-1 and proceed further."

2. Illegal Encroachment Of Kotputli Road: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Public Notices For Demolition

Case Title: Prakash Chand Saini v. State Of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 83

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the public notices for demolition issued by Nagar Palika asking all the occupants within the Kotputli road land to remove their structures.

A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, ordered,

"1. Any of the appellants-original petitioners who may have received the said notice dated 14/15.12.2021 may file objections before the authorities. If no objection is raised, the same be done within a period of 30 days from today. The objection which have already been received or those may be received 30 days thereafter be disposed of by the authorities by a speaking order as desired by the learned Single Judge.

2. Public notice dated 23.12.2021 is quashed."

3. Titles Like 'Raja' Can't Be Used In Courts, Public Offices Etc As They Are Prohibited Under Articles 14, 18 & 363A Of Constitution : Rajasthan High Court

Caste Title: Bhagwati Singh (Since Deceased) S/o (Late) Shri Raja Mansingh v. Raja Laxman Singh S/o (Late) Shri Raja Mansingh and connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 84

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that the use of salutations and titles such as "Raja", "Nawab" and "Rajkumar" in constitutional courts, all other Courts, tribunals, public offices of the State etc. is prohibited in terms of Articles 14, 18 and 363A of the Constitution of India. The court ordered that the said restriction will also apply in the public domain as well as public documents & public offices.

Justice Sameer Jain, ruled,

"In the light of above, this Court holds that in Constitutional Courts, all other Courts, Tribunals, public offices of the State etc., the use of salutation and titles is prohibited in terms of Articles 14 18 and 363A of the Constitution of India. The said restriction will also apply in the public domain as well as public documents & public offices."

The Court took up the issue on noticing that a respondent in the cause-title of a petition was addressed as "Raja Laxman Singh".

4. REET 2021: Rajasthan High Court Finds Discrepancy In Final Answer Key, Directs RBSE To Obtain Fresh Expert Opinion

Case Title: Karma Ram v. The Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, through its Secretary

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 85

The Rajasthan High Court directed the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan (RBSE) to get a fresh expert opinion by a different committee pertaining to one question of Hindi Subject in a plea challenging the final answer key of Rajasthan Eligibility Exam for Teachers (REET) 2021 Level-1.

The written examination of REET-2021 was held on 26.09.2021. The result of the same was published on 02.11.2021 along with the final answer key.

Justice Arun Bhansali, ruled,

"...the petitions to the extent of petitioners, who have raised objection qua Question No.79 in subject Hindi of Series 'J', which is question No.84 in 'K' series, 73 in 'L' series, and 69 in 'M' series, are partly allowed. The respondent-Board is accordingly directed to get a fresh expert opinion by a different committee on the said question and give effect to the opinion of the expert committee qua the petitioners who have raised objections qua said question No.79 (Subject: Hindi) in 'J' series and qua the same question in other series as well."

5. Senior Citizens Act Does Not Contemplate Eviction Of Children, Tribunal Can Only Order Maintenance: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Vinod Sharma v. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 86

The Rajasthan High Court observed that Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act, 2007) does not envisage an order of eviction even by the District Magistrate, much less the Tribunal.

The court dealt with the question whether pursuant to an application filed under Section 5 of Act, 2007 read with Rajasthan Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2010 (Rules, 2010'), can an order of eviction be passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 2007.

Justice Dinesh Mehta, while allowing the petition filed by one such child who was directed by the Tribunal to vacate his parents' premises, ruled,

"To conclude, while observing that the Act of 2007 does not envisage an order of eviction even by the District Magistrate, much less the Tribunal, this Court unhesitantly holds that order of ouster of the petitioner oppugned in the instant writ petition is dehors the provisions of the Act of 2007; beyond the scope of Rules of 2010 and also out of the powers of the Tribunal."

6. Provisional Attachment under CGST Act Ceases After Expiry Of One Year: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: M/s B.r. Construction Company Versus Additional Director

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 87

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the provisional attachment under CGST Act ceases to have effect after expiry of one year.

The division bench headed by the Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal while listing the matter on March 22, 2022 stayed the provisional attachment.

The bank account of the petitioner/assessee was placed under provisional attachment by an order in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) by the respondents.

7. Proper Facts & Evidence Must Be Placed Before Court To Invoke PIL Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Gajendra Purbia & Anr. v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 88

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a citizen approaching the court in a public interest jurisdiction holds greater duty to make full research and present necessary facts before the court to cause further investigation.

In the present matter, serious allegations were made by the petitioners with respect to mis-management of the respondent No. 2, Arth Credit Cooperative Society.

A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana, while disposing of the petition, observed, "A citizen approaching the Court in a public interest jurisdiction holds a greater duty to make full research and present necessary facts before the Court to cause further investigation."

8. If There Are No Specific Allegations In Petition, Can't Allow It To Be Supplied Through Rejoinders: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Sawai Singh Sodha & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 89

The Rajasthan High Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation alleging corruption in MGNREGA. The court observed that there is no prima facie material in the petition to sustain the allegations levelled by the petitioners.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, observed, "After going through the petition, we find that though there are allegations made in the petition, there is no prima facie material along with the petition to sustain the allegations of the petitioners."

9. YouTube Is A Private Entity, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Dharmender Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 90

The Rajasthan High Court on Monday dismissed as non-maintainable, a writ petition seeking various reliefs qua online video sharing platform, YouTube.

Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal refused to accept the submission of the petitioner that Youtube discharges the functions of a 'State', considering the public nature of the functions it performs.

"There is not a whisper of averment in the entire writ petition as to true nature of functions being discharged by the respondent No.2 (YouTube) or the same being of public importance. In absence of any factual foundation to substantiate the submission that the respondent No.1 has deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the respondent No.2 or it discharges the public functions which are akin to the Government functions, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner."

10. Rajasthan HC Directs Reliance Jio To Shift 4G Tower Creating Inconvenience To Devotees Visiting Gurudwara Within 2 Months

Case Title: Shri Labana Gawaria Sikh Samaj Sewa Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 91

The Rajasthan High Court has directed Reliance Jio to shift its 4G mobile tower from the existing place to 15-20 feets away from the gate of a Gurudwara within a period of two months. The plea was filed by Shri Labana Gawaria Sikh Samaj Sewa Samiti, Jodhpur through Its Secretary - Kripal Singh Sodhi.

Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, ordered, "In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 5 to shift the tower from the existing place to 15-20 feets away from the gate of Gurudwara within a period of two months. It is made clear that except the erection of the tower, no other attachment including generator can be placed near the tower."

11. S.148 NI Act | Requirement To Deposit Minimum 20% Of Fine In Appeal Against Conviction U/S 138 Is Mandatory: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: G.k. Construction Company, Through Its Owner Govind Katariya v. Balaji Makan Samagri Stores, Through Its Proprietor Mallaram Patel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ra) 92

The Rajasthan High Court observed that if modal auxiliary verbs or imperative words such as 'may', 'should' etc. are followed by the provision/expression prescribing lower bar/limit such as 'minimum', 'not below', etc. then, these words ('may', 'should', etc.) are required to be read as 'shall'.

The court dealt with the question whether the usage of word 'may' in section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act provides a discretion to the Court to impose or not to impose the condition of depositing minimum 20% of the fine amount.

Section 148 provides that in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court.

12. 'Unless Stayed In Any Proceedings, Eviction Orders Must Be Followed': Rajasthan HC In PIL To Remove Encroachments From School Playground

Case Title: Bot Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 93

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that unless the orders of eviction are set aside or stayed in any proceedings, eviction must follow.

Essentially, the present public interest litigation was filed seeking issuance of directions to the authorities to remove encroachments from the disputed land, which, according to the petitioner, was a playground of the school.

A division bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, while partly allowing the plea. ruled, "Therefore, subject to any remedy that the aforesaid respondents may have taken against the orders of eviction including order passed in appeal, the State authorities are duty bound to remove them from the land in question as they all suffer orders of eviction passed by an authority constituted under the law. Unless the orders of eviction are set aside or stayed in any proceedings, eviction must follow"

13. 'Buses Shall Be Seized If Operators Found Picking & Dropping Passengers In Violation MV Act', Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 94

The division bench of Rajasthan High Court ordered that buses shall be seized of those bus operators who are found picking and dropping passengers in violation of relevant rules and regulations framed under the Motor Vehicles Act as also under the local laws.

Essentially, the public interest litigation has been filed praying that instead of making operational bus-stand at the place donated by the petitioner, as per decision already taken, buses are operating from the main road seriously affecting the movement of the vehicles and also giving rise to apprehension of the accidents.

Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, ruled, "Those bus-operators, who are found picking and dropping passengers in violation of relevant rules and regulations framed under the Motor Vehicles Act as also under the local laws, shall be proceeded against them and the buses shall be seized. This petition stands disposed off accordingly."

14. Appointment Under Outstanding Sportsperson Quota Can Be Made Only When There Is 'Direct Affiliation' With Indian Olympic Association: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Nisha v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 95

The Rajasthan High Court, while observing that ShootingBall Federation of India's circuitous affiliation with the Indian Olympic Association through Rajasthan State Olympic Association cannot be recognized, upheld the rejection of petitioner's candidature under Outstanding Sports Person category for appointment for the post of Compounder.

Justice Arun Bhansali, while dismissing the petition, opined that there is no substance in the writ petition and thereby, ruled, "Admittedly, ShootingBall Federation of India is not affiliated to Indian Olympic Association and therefore, it can not be said that the respondents committed any fault in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner as a Outstanding Sports Person. The plea raised, that as the Association is affiliated with the Rajasthan State Olympic Association, which in turn is affiliated to the Indian Olympic Association and therefore, the condition is fulfilled, has been noticed for rejection only, as the stipulation requires direct affiliation and not via/through some other Olympic Association."

15. Merely Because Wife Filed Application After 36yrs of Marriage, Husband Can't Be Absolved of His Obligation To Pay Interim Maintenance, Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Chandrakant Jain v. Veermati Jain

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 96

The Rajasthan High Court observed that the husband, who admittedly earns Rs.40,000/- per month, cannot be absolved of his obligation to pay interim maintenance, merely because the wife has chosen to file the application after 36 years of marriage.

Essentially, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order passed by Gram Nyayalay, Aspur, District Dungarpur ("Trial Court"), whereby the Trial Court had partly allowed the application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent-wife. The Trial Court had directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance.

As per the petitioner, the couple got married on 17.02.1976 and have been living separately since 1986.

Justice Dinesh Mehta, while dismissing the petition, opined, "In the opinion of this Court, an order under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is in the nature of interim maintenance and husband, who admittedly earns Rs.40,000/- per month cannot be absolved of his obligation to pay interim maintenance, merely because the respondent – wife has chosen to file the application after 36 years of marriage."

16. 'Absolutely Extraneous': Rajasthan HC Quashes Recommendation Rejecting Rape Convict's Plea To Be Sent To Open Air Camp As Other Ladies Living In Camp

Case Title: Ajit Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 97

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the recommendation of the respondent-state, which rejected a rape convict's application for being sent to Open Air Camp.

The Superintendent of Jail had not recommended the case of the petitioner for being sent to the Open Air Camp as he was of young age and that other convicts are residing in the Camp with their wives and daughters. The Committee also recommended that the convict is not liable to be sent to the Open Air Camp as he is convicted under Section 376 of IPC for which life imprisonment has been awarded to him.

A division bench of Justice Rekha Borana and Justice Sandeep Mehta, opined, "We are of the firm opinion that this observation made by the Committee in the adverse recommendations is absolutely extraneous and unwarranted. Merely because the convict is of young age and other ladies/ girls are living in the Camp, that by itself would not imply that the accused would misbehave with them."

17. 'Petitioner Being Working Woman Has Multiple Duties To Perform & Will Face Difficulties To Travel Long Distance With Minor Children', Rajasthan HC Allows Transfer Plea

Case Title: Anju Boyal v. Ravindra Kuma

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 98

The Rajasthan High Court, while allowing a transfer petition, observed that petitioner being a working woman has multiple duties to perform and will face difficulties to travel a long distance with her minor children. The court ordered that the Civil Original Case No. 73/2020 pending before Additional District Judge – Family Court, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu be transferred to the Family Court, Bhilwara.

18. 'Open To Teachers To Raise Concerns To Authorities In Case Of Personal Difficulties', Rajasthan HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Directions To State To Not Deploy Teachers As BLO

Case Title: Mahesh Swami v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 99

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking directions to the respondents-state to not deploy teachers as Booth Level Officer ('BLO') in view of the provisions of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

The court observed that it is always open for teachers to approach the concerned authority in any given case of personal difficulties. The court opined that it is expected of the concerned authority to look into the grievance raised and in case, found justified to redress the same appropriately.

Justice Arun Bhansali, while observing that the plea raised in the petitions has no substance, ruled,

"However, insofar as, the personal difficulties to a teacher in a given case are concerned, it is always open for them to approach the concerned authority in this regard and it is expected of the concerned authority to look into the grievance raised and in case, found justified to redress the same appropriately. With the above observations, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petitions. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed."

19. Penalty Clause In Policy For Private Colleges Issued By Commissioner, College Education Is Illegal & Beyond His Power, Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Sita Devi Educational Society, Bhilwara & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 100

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the penalty clause in the Private Colleges Policy issued by the Commissioner, College Education, for different years in question, is beyond his power and illegal.

The court considered these matters on the point of competence of the Commissioner, College Education for issuance of policy and more particularly qua the powers of imposing penalty under the same and whether the same is legal, jurisdictionally valid and permissible under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 or not.

Justice Sameer Jain, disposed of the writ petitioners in terms of the following directions and observations:

(1) The penalty clause in the policy/instructions for Private Colleges issued by the Commissioner, College Education, for different years in question, is held to be beyond his power and is declared illegal.

(2) The penalty deposited by the respective petitioner/college under the orders of the Court or in the light of the provisions of the Private Colleges Policy be refunded to the petitioners/colleges within a period of sixty days failing which interest @ 6% will accrue on the same after lapse of 60 days."

(3) Amount refunded by the respondents shall be deposited by the respective petitioners/colleges in the "Student Welfare Fund", and be used for the welfare and betterment of students in activities like clearing dues of students who are unable to deposit fee, medical care, library, and other amenities and facilities needed for and by the students and not be used for any other purpose.

(4) The State as well as respondents are directed to ensure that on account of present dispute, students should not be made to suffer and their results, mark-sheets, admit cards, other documents should not be withheld and be declared/released in capacity of regular students forthwith immediately, without any fail. The respondents are directed to assist and help the students in question on 24×7 basis. No student should be deprived of appearance in any future examination or appearance on account of present dispute as the petitioners have submitted that the nondeclaration of result is causing prejudice to the students for appearing in future examinations including competitive examinations.

20. Claimants Can't Be Allowed To Take Double Benefit Of Two Claims Filed Under Two Different Statutes i.e. Motor Vehicle Act & Workmen's Compensation Act, Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Prem v. Amar Jeet Singh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 103

The Rajasthan High Court observed that the claimants cannot be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes i.e. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It was added that the claimant has to choose one forum only and after choosing a forum, he cannot be allowed to choose another forum to get more benefits.

In this appeal, the court dealt with the issue 'Whether the claimants-appellants can file two parallel claim petitions for getting compensation under section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988')?'

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, ordered,

"In view of the settled position of law, it is clear that the claimants cannot be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes i.e. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The claimant has to choose one forum only and after choosing a forum, he cannot be allowed to choose another forum to get more benefits. The claimants cannot claim double benefit under both the enactments."

21. Can't Upset Concurrent Findings On Facts Unless There Is Any Illegality, Infirmity Or Error Of Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Rajasthan Housing Board through Dy. Housing Commissioner & Resident Engineer v. Legal Representatives of deceased plaintiff Mani Ram

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 101

The Rajasthan High Court observed that well reasoned concurrent findings and reasons recorded by the prescribed authorities under the statute or by the appellate authority thereunder would not warrant any interference unless there is any illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction.

Justice Vinit Mathur, while observing that there is no force in the instant writ petition, ordered,

"In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three courts below does not suffer from any infirmity as the same has been recorded after correct appreciation of evidence on record. There is no jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the courts below which warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. There is no force in these writ petitions. The same are, therefore, dismissed."

22. [SARFAESI] Rajasthan HC Imposes 2Lac Cost For Misrepresentation, Not Availing Alternative Remedy, Not Impleading Necessary Parties & For Keeping Court In Dark

Case Title: Jaipur Texweaving Park Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 102

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition with a cost of Rs. 2 lac on account of misrepresentation, not impleading the consortium banks as necessary parties and praying for relief against them in their absence, not availing the alternative remedy and keeping the Court in dark by getting ex-parte stay during the course of advocates' strike.

Justice Sameer Jain noted that the petitioner has given an impression that its several members have paid their entire dues and in parallel are defending the matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whereby they were successful in avoiding payment of due of Rs.20 crores and interest thereon.

Essentially, the writ petition has been filed challenging respondent(s)' action of issuing notices to petitioner under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The plea sought for declaring the entire act of the respondents under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to be illegal, perverse and unconstitutional and for directing the respondents No. 1 & 5 to intervene in the matter or in the alternate for appointment of Court Commissioner for demarcating the arrears and liabilities in question in between the members.

23. [Habeas Corpus] Rajasthan High Court Directs UIDAI To Share Aadhar Details of Suspect & Minor Girl With Investigation Officer Within 7 Days For Tracing

Case Title: Ramratan Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 104

The division bench of Rajasthan High Court directed UIDAI officials to expedite the process of providing the Aadhar details of the suspect and a minor child to the Investigating Officer.

The court further directed that the aforesaid details shall be shared within seven days.

Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed,

"We, therefore, direct that the UIDAI officials shall expedite the process of providing the Aadhar details of the suspect and the corpus to the Investigating Officer and same shall be shared latest within seven days from today. "

24. Section 459 IPC Applies If Trespasser Causes Grievous Hurt Or Attempts To Cause Death Or Hurt While Trespassing: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Smt Meena v. State, Through PP

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 105

The Rajasthan High Court observed that Section 459 of Indian Penal Code would apply if a trespasser causes grievous hurt or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt in the course of the trespass i.e. whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking.

Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while allowing the petition, modified the trial court's order (for the offence U/s 458, 323, 324, 325, 307/34) to the extent of framing of charges under Section 459 IPC in place of Section 458 IPC and thereby, observed,

"In this case, the accused-respondents illegal and forcibly entered the house of the complainant/petitioner, armed with lathis, sariyas and swords during night hours at about 10:15 p.m. on 31.09.2016, and inflicted grievous injuries upon the son and husband of the complainant/petitioner, while remaining in her house premises. The same constitutes house breaking, and the grievous hurt is not disputed, and thus, the applicability of Section 459 IPC is made out."

25. Trial Of Salman Khan's Deer Hunting Case Transferred To Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Salman Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 106

The Rajasthan High Court has allowed Salman Khan's transfer petition in the deer hunting case. The petitioner prayed for transfer of the criminal appeals and Arms Act appeal from the Sessions Court, primarily on the ground that they arose from the same judgment and set of facts and evidence, involving several common witnesses and overlapping allegations as in the Leave to appeal filed by the state in the High Court.

The transfer petition was filed under Sections 402 and 407 of The Criminal Procedure Code, and Rule 113 of The Rajasthan High Court Rules.

Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, observed,

"Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, and accordingly, it is directed that criminal appeal No.18/2018 filed by complainant Punamchand relating to alleged offence under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Criminal Appeal No.22/2017 relating to alleged offence under Arms Act, 1956, both pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District shall be transferred to this Hon'ble High Court, to be heard alongwith the Criminal Leave to Appeal No.311/2018 (State of Raj. Vs. Saif Ali Khan & Ors.)."

26. Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Judge Jitendra Singh Guliya & 2 Judicial Clerks Booked On Charges of Sexually Assaulting A Minor Boy

Case Title: Rahul Katara v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 107

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to judicial officer Jitendra Singh Guliya and two judicial clerks. All the three accused are in custody for the offences punishable under section 377/34 of I.P.C. and 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act.

Last year, the Rajasthan High Court suspended Jitendra Singh Guliya, with immediate effect pending preliminary enquiry and contemplated departmental enquiry. An order to this effect was issued by the High Court's Registrar General, under the direction of the Chief Justice of the High Court. He was posted as Special Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bharatpur.

Justice Farjand Ali, while granting bail to the accused persons, observed,

"All the accused persons are government servants out of which one is a Judicial officer and if the pre-conviction detention does not lead to conviction then compensation for such detention whereby tarnishing the reputation of an individual holding a Judicial post will never be compensated. Thus, the detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive; and for the reasons as noted above this court is of the considered view that since the accused is languishing in judicial custody, his further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose."

27. Civil Suit Maintainable Against Termination Of Probationer If No Enquiry Conducted Before Removal: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director & Ors. v. Udai Singh Kumawat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 108

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the services of a regular appointed employee, though on probation, cannot be terminated without enquiry and without providing an opportunity of hearing and explaining the charges against him.

The court pursued that the fact finding of two courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out in such fact findings, so as to give rise to any question of law much less substantial question of law. In this regard, the court noted that the nature of termination in the present matter was stigmatic.

Previously, the court had framed the substantial question of law as "Whether, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff?".

Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,

"As far as nature of termination as simpliciter or stigmatic is concerned, both Courts have concurrently held on the strength of oral or documentary evidence that the termination was stigmatic. The services of regular appointed employee, though on probation, cannot be terminated without enquiry and without providing an opportunity of hearing and explain the charges against him. The fact finding of two courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out in such fact findings, so as to give rise any question of law much less substantial question of law."

28. Additional Evidence Not Required To Prove Certified Copies Of Judgments: Rajasthan HC Allows Application Under Order XLI Rule 27

Case Title: Nand Kishore & Anr. v. Saleem Khan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 109

The Rajasthan High Court, while allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC observed that no additional evidence is required to be recorded to prove the additional documents, when the same are certified copies of the judgments passed by Judicial Courts.

Justice Sudesh Bansal, opined,

"In the opinion of this court, copies of judgment dated 04.09.2006 and order dated 23.07.2012, have material bearing on issues involved in the present appeal. No additional evidence is required to be recorded to prove the additional documents, as the same are certified copies of the judgments passed by Judicial Courts. Thus, in the interest of justice, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed."

29. 'Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice': Rajasthan HC Raps State For Discontinuing Water Facilities For Irrigation

Case Title: Ratan Devi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 110

The Rajasthan High Court observed that the decision of state government discontinuing water facilities through siphons is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners, who used the supply for irrigating their fields since last 35 years.

The court opined that the impugned orders are having civil and evil consequences, and are therefore not sustainable in the eye of the law.

Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, while allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the impugned orders, observed,

"In the considered opinion of this court, the action taken by the respondents authorities is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded before passing the orders which are having civil and evil consequences, and, therefore, the orders are not sustainable in the eye of the law."

30. 'Grave Misconduct': Rajasthan HC Imposes 1 Lac Cost On Advocate Who Filed Original Application Without Authorization, Superimposed Sign By Xerox Machine Etc.

Case Title: T.C. Gupta v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 111

The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur order imposing 1 Lac cost on petitioner-advocate.

The court observed that the petitioner-advocate, who in more than one matters, has indulged in filing Original Applications in the Tribunal as well as writ petitions in the High Court and has personally signed the pleadings etc. without having been specifically authorised in this regard by the litigants.

It was opined by the court that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner, who has been enrolled as an Advocate post retirement from the Income Tax Department, has acted as de facto party in Judicial proceedings cannot be faulted.

31. Rajasthan High Court Refuses Bail To Director Of A Company Allegedly Involved In GST Evasion Worth Rs.869 Crores

Case Title: Sohan Singh Rao Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 112

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has refused to grant bail to the director of a company who was allegedly involved in goods and service tax (GST) evasion worth Rs. 869 crores.

The court noted that the Supreme Court in its various decisions held that an economic offender should not be dealt with as a general offender because economic offenders run a parallel economy and they are a serious threat to the national economy.

The court relied on the decision of Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union of India in which the bail of Vinaykant Ameta was dismissed by the High Court and the Apex Court had granted the bail of Vinaykant Ameta on depositing Rs. 200 crores.

32. Non-Availability Of Form GST ITC-02A On GSTN Portal: Rajasthan High Court Allows ITC In GSTR-3B

Case Title: Pacific Industries Ltd. Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 113

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has allowed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST in GSTR-3B Return as FORM GST ITC-02A was not available on the GSTN Portal at the time of its insertion.

The court observed that the department failed to acknowledge and transfer the input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 2,58,03,590 accruing to the petitioner pursuant to the registration of its new business unit in accordance with Rule 41A of the GST Rules. The action of the department was grossly illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

"The respondents are directed to regularise the input tax credit in favour of the petitioner as per entitlement. The petitioner shall be allowed to avail the Input Tax Credit of Rs.2,58,03,590/- through the next GSTR-3B return," the court said.

33. Administrative Committee Of Rajasthan High Court Says 'No Need' To Use A4 Size Paper

Case Title: Lakshya Purohit v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 114

The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions for usage of A4 size papers for judicial filings and other court proceedings.

The division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta took note of the decision taken on High Court's administrative side that the present regime may continue and no change is needed.

Presently, the High Court follows General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018 which provides that all pleadings, applications, petitions and any other relevant paper of whatsoever nature filed in the course of judicial proceedings shall be printed in double space on stout durable papers of "foolscap size".

The petitioners, two law students, namely Lakshya Purohit and Akriti Agarwal, had sought usage of A4 size paper instead, stating that the same will prevent wastage of paper and help save the environment.

Other Important Updates

1. Russia-Ukraine Conflict : Taking Best Possible Steps To Bring Stranded Indian Citizens, Centre Informs Rajasthan HC

The Central government has informed the Rajasthan High Court that its agencies are taking best possible steps to bring back the Indian citizens including students, stranded in Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia.

Additional Solicitor General RD Rastogi apprised the Court that the Indian government has launched operation "Ganga", whereby it is sending various flights through different countries to the capital of Ukraine i.e. Kyiv. The ASG added that the authorities are open to act upon the suggestions, if any.

The development ensued in a writ petition filed by two residents of Rajasthan's Baran district, seeking evacuation of their stranded children.

2. President Appoints Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava As Acting Chief Justice Of Rajasthan High Court

The Central Government has notified the appointment of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava as the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court (as per Article 223 of the Constitution of India) with effect from March 7.

Justice MM Shrivastava, the senior-most Judge of the Uttarakhand Pradesh High Court, will be performing the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of the High Court consequent upon the retirement of Justice Akil Abdulhamid Kureshi, Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court. Justice Kureshi is retiring on March 6, 2022.

3. 'I Consider It A Certificate Of Independence' : Justice Akil Kureshi On Centre's "Negative Perception" About His Judicial Orders

Justice Akil Kureshi, the outgoing Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, made certain significant statements in his farewell speech on Saturday.

Justice Kureshi's non-elevation to the Supreme Court, despite being the senior most Chief Justice in the country, has become a point of discussion among the legal fraternity, amid the widespread perception that the Central Government is not in his favour due to certain orders passed by him against the ruling party during his stint as a judge of the Gujarat High Court.

In his farewell address, Justice Kureshi referred to some statements made by former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in his recently published autobiography.

"Recently, a former Chief Justice of India has written his autobiography. I haven't read it but going by media reports he has made some disclosures. Regarding changing my recommendation for Chief Justice of MP High Court to Chief Justice of Tripura High Court, it is stated that Government had some negative perceptions about me based on judicial opinions. As a judge of the Constitutional Court, whose most primary duty is to protect the fundamental and human rights of the citizens, I consider it a certificate of independence", Justice Kureshi said.

Also Read: Justice Akil Kureshi : I made no decision based on its consequences for me; I leave with pride intact

Out Of 48 Chief Justices of India, When We Speak Of Courage, We Remember The One Who Wasn't Made CJI: Justice Akil Kureshi

'I Consider It A Certificate Of Independence' : Justice Akil Kureshi On Centre's "Negative Perception" [Video]

4. Expected From Parents To Pay Necessary Fees Or Some Installments To Pvt Schools Which Have Settled Fee Structure After Apex Court's Decision, Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Miss Ikshita Jain v. Cambridge Court High School

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that it was expected from the parents to pay necessary fees or at least some installments, if their children are enrolled in private schools which have settled fee structure after Apex Court's decision.

In this matter, petitioners are students of respondent No.1-Cambridge Court High School, which have allegedly deprived the petitioners to write their examination starting from 03.03.2022. Their parents gave several representations to the Authorities and requested to fix the fees as per the directions of the Apex Court, but did not receive any response. It was informed that the District Education Officer also sought explanation from the respondent school, however, no such intimation has been given by them.

Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, ruled, "The children or their parents, if they have enrolled in private schools and the fees structure after decision of the Apex Court, is settled by the School, it was expected from the parents that the necessary fee or at least some installments, should have been paid by them."

5. 'Similar Issue Before Apex Court': Rajasthan HC Refuses To Pass Order In Plea For Evacuation Of Indians Stranded In Ukraine

Case Title: Bhagirath Rathore & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court has, for the time being, refused to pass any order in a writ petition filed by two residents of Rajasthan's Baran district, seeking evacuation of their children stranded in Ukraine, amid Russian invasion. The court observed that a similar issue is pending before the Apex Court.

The plea averred that the petitioners had contacted the National Human Rights Commission to draw their attention to the "heart shaking" problems with their children, but the NHRC instead of providing immediate relief gave 8 weeks' time to the authorities.

However, Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur refused to pass any orders at this stage.

"This Court, in view of pendency of similar issue before the Apex Court, does not intend to pass any order, at this stage."

6. COVID-19: Law Interns Permitted Entry In Rajasthan High Court

In view of improvement in situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic and relaxation in conditions imposed by the State Government through recent guidelines, the Rajasthan High Court has allowed entry of Law Interns in the court premises, subject to strict compliance of the SOP.

The notification issued by the Registrar General of the High Court states:

"In partial modification of earlier Notification No.Actts(Estt.)/HC/Misc./Corona/2022/372 dated 05.02.2022, in view of improvement of conditions arising out of Covid-l9 cases and relaxation in conditions imposed by the State Government in recent guidelines, it is hereby notified that henceforth the entry of Law Interns in the court premises is allowed subject to strict compliance of Covid-19 guidelines."

7. Rajasthan Bar Protests Against State's Failure To Trace Advocate's Missing Daughters

The Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur along with District Bar Association, Jaipur protested against state administration's failure to find two minor daughters of an Advocate, who have been missing for over 45 days.

Two minor daughters of Jaipur-based Advocate Avdesh Kumar Purohit have been missing from Lai C. M. Senior Secondary School, Kartarpura, Jaipur since Feb 3, 2022. An FIR was also lodged on the same day. The last location of the minor girls was reported in Lucknow.

The Rajasthan High Court Bar Association has decided to offer a cash reward of Rs. 51,000 to the person who gives information about the girls.

8. Difficulty In Getting Only Mother's Name As Legal Guardian On PAN & Other Documents: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance

Case Title: Suo Moto v. Union of India

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has recently taken suo moto cognizance considering the difficulty faced by an individual in getting only his mother's name as legal guardian on PAN and other documents.

The suo moto cognizance was taken by Justice Sameer Jain based on a report published in The Hindu on 08.03.2022 titled, "Want Mother's Name on Documents? Get ready for the runaround". The case was registered on Court's file on the International Women's Day i.e. 08.03.2022 and was thereby placed before the division bench of the High Court.

On 10.03.2022, the division bench granted three weeks' time to both Union and State government to file an affidavit indicating as to where and in what departments the names of mothers are mentioned and used as a practice.

Advocate Divyesh Maheshwari was appointed as amicus curiae by the court.

9. TDS On Cash Withdrawals Exceeding ₹1 Crore: Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice On PIL Challenging Constitutionality Of S.194N Income Tax Act

Case Title: Abhay Singla v. Union of India

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has recently issued notice in a public interest litigation challenging the constitutionality of Section 194N of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The provision was inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 and became effective from September 1, 2019. The provision mandates the deduction of tax at source at the rate of 2% on cash withdrawals from, inter alia, a banking company exceeding Rs. 1 crore in a financial year.

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, observed,

"Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. PF be filed within one week."

10. Rajasthan High Court Directs State To 'Intensify' Action To Trace Advocate's Missing Daughters, Govt Constitutes SIT

Case Title: Avadesh Kumar Purohit v. The State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court was informed by the state that the case of advocate's missing daughters has been transferred to the Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The court was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Jaipur-based Advocate Avdesh Kumar Purohit, whose two minor daughters have been missing from Lai C. M. Senior Secondary School, Kartarpura, Jaipur since Feb 3, 2022. An FIR was also lodged on the same day. The last location of the minor girls was reported in Lucknow.

The court pursued that positive steps are being taken to trace out the detenues and it directed the respondents to intensify the action in this regard.

Justice Prakash Gupta and Justice Birendra Kumar, observed, "From perusal of the same, it appears that positive steps have been taken to trace out the detenues, who are yet to be traced. The respondents are directed to intensify the action to trace out the detenues."