Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: January 10 To January 16, 2022

1. Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society: Rajasthan High Court Orders Expeditious Disposal of Depositor's Claim Application

Case Title: Chetan Choudhary v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 7

The Rajasthan High Court on Monday directed the Central government to expeditiously decide on the claim application filed by a depositor of the beleaguered Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.

It ordered that the said decision has to be taken preferably within a period of 90 days, strictly in accordance with the law.

Justice Dinesh Mehta ordered,

" The respondents are directed to take a decision on the application filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order strictly in accordance with rules and guidelines governing the field."

The Adarsh Credit Co-op Society allegedly floated several fake companies and siphoned off its depositors money, approximately Rs. 8,000 Crore.

2. Rajasthan High Court Orders NEET Authority to Allot College To A Pakistani Citizen, Despite Not Having Long Time Visa

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 8

The Rajasthan High Court has ordered the competent authority of NEET to allot an appropriate college to a citizen of Pakistan, in accordance with his merit, while ignoring the fact that he does not possess a Long Term Visa.

Justice Dinesh Mehta, in his order, observed,

" Petitioner appeared in the NEET (UG) Examination and has secured 80% marks, it is hereby ordered that the competent authority of the NEET shall allot appropriate college to the petitioner, of course, in accordance with his merit, however, ignoring the fact that the petitioner is not having Long Term Visa in his favour."

The court further added that the petitioner shall thereafter be permitted to pursue his course, which shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition.

The petitioner, his parents and siblings are Pakistani Citizens and they came to India on October 29, 2011 through valid Passport under Long Term Visa (LTV).

3. Couples Can't Seek Protection As a Matter of Right, Must Muster The Audacity to Persuade Their Families: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Shobha and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 9

The Rajasthan High Court has denied Police protection to a runaway couple, apprehending threat from their families. The court observed that there is no material or reason for it to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril.

Justice Dinesh Mehta further observed,

" If the petitioners have decided to marry, they must muster the audacity and possess tenacity to face and to persuade the society and their family to accept the step they have taken."

In the instant case, it noted that there is not even an iota of evidence to evince that the respondents (relatives of the petitioner No.1) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.

4. Ingredients to Constitute Unlawfully Assembly Lacking, Altercation Has All Trappings of a "Free Fight": Rajasthan High Court Modifies Trial Court Order

Case Title: Madhuram and Ors v. State of Rajasthan, with connected matter

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 10

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed and set aside conviction of five accused persons for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries/ murder, observing that the incident was nothing but a "free fight.

The Division Bench comprising Justices Rameshwar Vyas and Sandeep Mehta observed,

" We have no hesitation in holding that the ingredients required to constitute an unlawful assembly are totally lacking in this case and hence, the implication of accused persons by virtue of Section 149 IPC is unwarranted and unsustainable".

Taking note of the facts of the case and the circumstances that led to an altercation between the complainants and the accused, it added,

" the incident has all trappings of a free-fight between the two parties without there being any motive for the accused to launch an assault with the intention to commit murder of any person from the complainant party."

5. Employer's Failure to Deposit Contributions Doesn't Disentitle Insured Person's Ward From Availing ESI Quota: Rajasthan HC Grants Relief to NEET Candidate

Case Title: Kunal Sharma and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 11

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has allowed a NEET Candidate to avail the benefit of ESIC quota (ward of insured person quota) in the counselling process for admissions in MBBS/BDS Course.

Notwithstanding the fact that the requisite contributions to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation were not paid by the employer concerned, the Court held that the candidate cannot be denied the benefit of quota, provided his father, the insured person, had paid his contribution prior to the cut-off date.

Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur observed,

" The non-deposit of contribution in spite of deduction will not make the person disentitle for the benefit of ward of insured person if the insured person had paid the contribution to his employer prior to 31.03.2021."

6. Demolition of Illegal Encroachment On Kotputli Road: Rajasthan High Court Orders Status Quo; Directs Local Authority to Pass Reasoned Order

Case Title: Chunnilal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 12

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has directed the Nagar Palika, Kotputli to decide the objections submitted by 25 petitioners pursuant to the notices issued to them for removal of road encroachment.

Justice Inderjeet Singh directed the authority to pass reasoned and speaking order within a period 30 days.

"I deem it just and proper to direct the respondent-Nagar Palika to decide the objections submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the notice issued to them, by reasoned and speaking order within a period 30 days," the order stated.

The writ petition was filed by the 25 individuals, all residents of Kotputli District in Jaipur, being aggrieved by the notices issued to them by the respondent-Nagar Palika, Kotputli in Dec 2021 for removal of encroachments from the road.

7. Merely Stating That Case Had Lingered In Court For Long Period of Time Isn't 'Contemptuous': Rajasthan High Court

Case title: Smt Garima Sauda v. Goverdhan Singh and others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 13

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that merely stating that a particular proceeding had lingered on before the Court for an unduly long period of time, cannot be seen as contemptuous.

Observing this, the Chief Justice Mr. Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana terminated a Contempt Petition filed by a Rajasthan Civil Judge, Garima Sauda against a practicing Advocate, Goverdhan Singh.

The case of the judicial officer was that in relation to a criminal case that was pending before her, Singh had made a highly objectionable comment on his Facebook page and several people had responded to that comment, and the same were also objectionable and contemptuous

8. No fundamental Right to Carry Out Business With Govt; Court's Interference In Formulating Tender Conditions Restrictive: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Abhimanyu Sharda and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 14

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that the interference of the Court in tender matters is very restrictive and it should refrain from interfering in the impugned policy decision of the government, pertaining to sale of Run of Mine Lignite.

Justice Inderjeet Singh, while dismissing the plea, ruled,

"In formulating the conditions of tender document, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State Authorities and if the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, the interference of the Courts is very restrictive since no person can claim fundamental right to carry out business with the Government".

9. Non-Reporting Of 'POCSO Case': "Sometimes Such Matters Aren't Reported To Save Girl's Reputation": Rajasthan HC Suspends Sentence Of Faculty, Hostel Warden

The Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentence awarded to a Faculty Member in the college and the Hostel Warden booked under Section 21 of the POCSO Act (among other offences) for their alleged failure to report a 'POCSO Case' of the hostel involving a minor girl, as it noted thus:

"Incidents are not uncommon where after deliberations, it is decided in a bonafide manner not to report such matters to the police, lest the reputation of the girl is tarnished. This aspect gains more importance because the hostel warden/higher-ups would definitely have preferred to deliberate with the parents of the girl before taking any such action."

Other Important Updates

1. After High Court Nudge, Indian Citizen's Dead Body To Be Exhumed In Russia & Handed Over To Family In Rajasthan For Cremation

Case Title: Asha v. Union of India

In the case pertaining to burial of an Indian citizen in Russia, the Rajasthan High Court was yesterday informed that his body will be exhumed and repatriated to India for enabling the deceased man's family to perform his last rites.

Justice Dinesh Mehta asked both Union and State to make necessary arrangements and ensure that the dead body of an Indian Citizen is handed over to family members at their Village Godwa, Tehsil Kherwara at the earliest.

The bench ordered, "Once the body is received from the Russian Government, Union of India, so also the State of Rajasthan will make all endeavors to ensure that it is handed over to the petitioners- family members at their Village Godwa, Tehsil Kherwara at the earliest."

2. Can 'Raja/Nawab/Maharaja/Rajkumar' Titles Be Used As Prefix In Constitutional, Lower Courts? Rajasthan HC Asks Centre, State

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

The Rajasthan High Court has issued a notice to the Central and State Governments asking as to whether any person can put Maharaja, Raja, Nawab, Rajkumar titles as a prefix while filing cases in the High Court or Trial Court.

The Bench of Justice Sameer Jain has sought the reply of the Union and Rajasthan Government after perusing the cause title of a petition, wherein, the Court noted, the respondent No.1 in the matter was titled as "Raja Laxman Singh".

At the outset, the Court referred to the 26th Amendment in the Constitution of India, Article 363-A, and Article 14 [Equality before law] to stress that recognition, titles granted to the rulers of the Indian State no more persist and have been abolished.

3. Deliberate And Wilful Non-Compliance Of Undertaking Is Contempt Under Contempt Of Court Act

Case Title: Ishwardas Alias Ishwar S/o Late Shri Ramchand v. Dr. Heeranand S/o Late Shri Hansaram through LRs

A single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench observed that breach of written undertaking given to the Court is contempt and is liable to be punished under the Contempt Courts Act, 1971.

Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "As per Definition of civil contempt, described in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, the civil contempt means willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. In the present case, the respondents have breached the written undertaking given to the Court. Therefore, they are prima facie guilty for committing contempt and liable to be punished under the Contempt Court Act, 1971.

In the present case, a contempt petition is filed alleging deliberate and willful non-compliance of the undertaking, given dated Oct 30, 2019 by the respondents-contemnors - Tulsi Meerchandani and Sehjanand - for vacating the rented shop and handing over the possession of rented shop on or before Oct 13, 2021, pursuant to the final judgment and order of Single Bench in 2019.