Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round Up: April 11 To April 17, 2022

Suresh Sharma & Anr. v. Dhanwanti Sharma 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 126

Avadesh Kumar Purohit v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 127

Trehan Apna Ghar Buildwell Private Limited through its Director/Authorised Signatory v. Munish Ranjan Sahay 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 128

Master Arjun Choudhary Through His Father Mr. Bhanwar Lal v. Chairman, Army Public School, Jodhpur & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 129

Deepak Kumar Gupta & Ors. .v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 130

Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 131

Kamalkant & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 132

Shri Mandar Jain Sangh, Mandar, Through Its Trustee Bhanwarlal Doshi v. Gram Panchayat, Mandar, Through Its Sarpanch, TehsilReodar, District Sirohi & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 133

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

1. 'Land Where Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam Manuscripted, Ill-Treatment To Parents Is Alarming & Disturbing', Rajasthan HC Directs Son & His Wife To Vacate House

Case Title: Suresh Sharma & Anr. v. Dhanwanti Sharma

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 126

The Rajasthan High Court observed that the land where Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was manuscripted, which considers the whole world a single family, the ill- treatment meted out to parents by their own children is both alarming and disturbing. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was formulated to redress the said grievance in a simple, inexpensive and speedy manner qua maintenance of the parents and senior citizens, added the court.

Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the petition filed by son and his wife, ruled,

"Therefore, the petitioners along with their family are directed to honor the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 and vacate the premises within a period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment on their own cost and restore the house in vacant manner and in appropriate condition to the respondent-mother with due respect. The SHO of the concerned Police Station may be provided a copy of this judgment by the Registrar (Judicial) for carrying out the directions, within the stipulated time, giving full security to the respondent. The respondent will be at liberty to permit the petitioner and his family to visit or live in the disputed property in future, if she so chooses."

2. Rajasthan High Court Closes Advocate's Missing Daughters Case After Girls Traced In Lucknow, Express Desire To Stay There To 'Pursue Dreams'

Case Title: Avadesh Kumar Purohit v. State Of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 127

The Rajasthan High Court has recently disposed of the Advocate's missing daughters case, after the daughters were produced before the court. The court observed that it is expected from the petitioner-father to comply with the wishes of his daughters and take them to Lucknow.

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

A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Birendra Kumar, observed,

"Petitioner who is present in person in the Court has agreed to help his daughters in fulfilling their dreams and has agreed to take them to Lucknow on 07.04.2022. It is expected from the petitioner that he would comply with the wishes of his daughters and take them to Lucknow on 07.04.2022."

3. Appeals U/S 58 RERA Act To Be Filed With Rs. 5,000 Court Fees, Will Be Heard By Single Bench: Rajasthan High Court

Case Name: Trehan Apna Ghar Buildwell Private Limited through its Director/Authorised Signatory v. Munish Ranjan Sahay

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 128

The Rajasthan High Court observed that where there is no specific provision available for payment of Court fees on appeals filed under Section 58 of the RERA Act, 2016 before the High Court, as a general principle of law, the Court fees of Rs.5000/- as required to be paid before the Appellate Tribunal under Rule 37 of the RERA Rules, 2017, be paid on appeal before the High Court.

Justice Sudesh Bansal directed the Registry to register these appeals in the manner as mentioned hereinabove and make a report about the payment of Court fees accordingly. The court also directed to circulate this order to the Stamp Reporters to follow the same for registering the appeals filed under Section 58 of RERA Act, 2016 in future before the Rajasthan High Court.

4. 'Contemptuous': Rajasthan High Court Expresses Displeasure Over Counsel Insisting Judge To Recuse From Hearing, Places Matter Before CJ

Case Title: Master Arjun Choudhary Through His Father Mr. Bhanwar Lal v. Chairman, Army Public School, Jodhpur & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 129

The Rajasthan High Court has opined that no counsel can insist a Judge to recuse from hearing a case, even if during the course of hearing, the court has commented on the merits of the case, which in the counsel's opinion are not favourable.

The remarks were made by Justice Vijay Bishnoi after a counsel, appearing for the petitioner in the matter, insisted that the case be transferred to another Bench.

The court opined that the conduct of the counsel, who sought the Judge's recusal and kept interrupting to prevent it from passing the order, is "highly objectionable and contemptuous".

5. Employer-Employee Relationship Can't Be Established My Mere Averment In Petition, Must Be Supported By Cogent Evidence On Record: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Deepak Kumar Gupta & Ors. .v. State Of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 130

The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed the writ petitions filed by persons who were appointed under Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana National Urban Livelihood Mission, claiming themselves to be the employees of the State Government and seeking regularisation, regular pay-scale, and salary directly from the State Government and not from the placement agency.

Justice Inderjeet Singh dismissed the writ petitions on the following grounds:

"Firstly, the petitioners have failed to establish their relationship of employee and employer with the respondent-State and only narration in the petition cannot be considered to be a justifiable ground to grant the relief prayed for, unless it is supported by cogent evidence on record as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh (supra); secondly, as per own version of the petitioners, they were appointment by the placement agency but failed to implead the placement agency as party respondent in the writ petitions; thirdly, the salary/ remuneration was also paid to the petitioners by the placement agency and not by the State Government; and lastly claim of the petitioners for regularisation in the State cannot be approved by this court as the petitioners were never appointed by the State Government against sanctioned post on regular basis, rather, as already observed above they were appointed by the placement agency."

6. 'Filed Without Any Research': Rajasthan High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging De-Registration Of 10 Yrs Old Diesel Vehicles Alone & Not Petrol Vehicles

Case Title: Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 131

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed praying that notification dated 22.01.2018 be declared ultra vires as direction is confined to deregistration of the diesel vehicles only, which are 10 years more and upto 15 years and not for petrol vehicles.

The public interest litigation was filed by one Bhanu Pratap Singh.

The court observed that the petition is devoid of any merit. The court added that no material has been placed on record as to on what basis the petitioner claims that the diesel vehicle and petrol vehicle both have similar combustion value and degree of pollution with the same age.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the petition, observed,

"This petition is devoid of any merit. No material has been placed on record as to on what basis the petitioner claims that the diesel vehicle and petrol vehicle both have similar combustion value and degree of pollution with the same age."

7. Citizens Don't Have Vested Right To Carry On Mining Operations, State Has Absolute Dominion To Decide Areas & Manner To Grant Permit: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Kamalkant & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 132

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the right to carry on mining operations is not a vested right of any citizen. The court added that the State Government has absolute dominion to decide as to the areas and manner in which the mining permits will be granted.

A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Farjand Ali, observed,

"At the outset, we may note that the right to carry on mining operations is not a vested right of any citizen. The State Government has absolute dominion to decide as to the areas and manner in which the mining permits will be granted."

8. Panchayat Has No Authority To Decide Question Of Revenue Entries As It Lies In Domain Of Revenue Authority Of State Of Rajasthan: High Court

Case Title: Shri Mandar Jain Sangh, Mandar, Through Its Trustee Bhanwarlal Doshi v. Gram Panchayat, Mandar, Through Its Sarpanch, TehsilReodar, District Sirohi & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 133

The Rajasthan High Court observed that Panchayat has no authority to decide the question of the revenue entries as the same lies in the domain of the revenue authority of the State of Rajasthan.

Justice Vineet Kumar Mathur, observed,

"Thus, the revenue entries in the name of petitioner as stand today creates no doubt with respect to the title of the land in question. It is also noted that the Panchayat has no authority to decide the question of the revenue entries as the same lies in the domain of the revenue authority of the State of Rajasthan."

Essentially, the Gram Panchayat, Mandar passed an interim order refusing to grant permission for raising construction of a building. The interim order was passed in the application preferred by the petitioner being the Khatedar owners of the land located in Gram Mandar. It was stated in the interim order that the petitioner may submit the documents to show how the land was converted from "Mafi Dharmada Po Bharayi Panch Mahajan Khatedar" to "Panch Mahajanan Khatedar".

Other Important Updates

1. Rajasthan High Court Issues Show Cause To District Collector, Jail Superintendent Over Delay In Deciding Convict's Emergent Parole

Case Title: Girdhari Singh Versus State of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court recently issued show cause notice to the Jail Superintendent and the District Collector in Bikaner, seeking their explanation over one month's delay in deciding the emergency parole application of a convict, whose mother had passed away.

The bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Rameshwar Vyas observed that Court has time and again directed the jail as well as parole authorities to remain vigilant while deciding the emergent parole applications and to ensure that orders are passed thereupon within 7 days of presentation.

Further, under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, an application for emergent parole is required to be decided within 4 days of presentation.

In this backdrop, te Bench remarked,

" Apparently, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner as well as District Collector, Bikaner have acted in contempt of this Courts' directions as also in gross non-compliance of Rule 23 of the Rules of 2021. "

2. Govt Jobs: PIL In Rajasthan High Court Seeks Source Of Answer Keys Used In Recruitment Exams, Suggests Overall Reforms In Process

Case Title: M/s Utkarsh Classes v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court has recently issued notice on a public interest litigation filed by Utkarsh Classes seeking disclosure of detailed syllabus and issuance of source of reference from which the question has been asked and the answer of the same has been relied upon in various recruitment examinations conducted by the state.

Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Rekha Borana, observed,

"Issue notice of writ petition, returnable within a period of four weeks and be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the petitioner for service."