Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: May 30 To June 5, 2022

Amit Swami & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 176

General Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur & Anr. v. Sonu & Anr. with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 177

Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 178

Rajendra Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 179

Navneet Singh Purohit v. Law Prep Tutorial, Through Proprietor Shri Sagar Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 180

Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL versus Ajmer Smart City Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 181

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

1. Patwari Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Orders Reconsideration Of Answers To Two Questions, Consequential Changes In Final Answer Key & Result

Case Title: Amit Swami & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 176

The Rajasthan High Court has recently directed the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board to re-examine certain disputed questions pertaining to recruitment exam for the post of Patwari, from different experts.

The Court ordered that based on the conclusion of such experts, the Board shall amend the final answer key and give effect to the marks obtained by the candidates and other consequential changes in the result.

The competitive written examination was held in four shifts and the final answer key was issued by the Board on 25.01.2022 on the basis of the decision taken by the Expert Committee on the objections raised by the candidates. Additionally, a list of provisionally selected candidates was issued for the purpose of verification of documents and credentials of the candidates.

2. Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Affix Reflectors On All Animal Carts, Deal Strictly With Persons Riding Sans Proper Safety Measures

Case Title: General Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur & Anr. v. Sonu & Anr. with other connected matters

Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 177

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State government to evolve a mechanism to ensure affixing of reflectors on all types of Animal Carts, Tractor Trolleys and similar types of rides on road. The Court also directed to ensure that the persons, who ride on roads without adopting proper safety measures, so as to endanger the life and safety of other persons, be dealt strictly under the provisions of relevant penal laws.

Justice Rameshwar Vyas observed,

"Before parting with the judgment with the intent to save several human lives from road accidents this Court deems it fit to direct the State Government to evolve mechanism so as to ensure affixing of reflectors on all types of Animal Carts, Tractor Trolleys and similar types of rides on road."

3. "Bench Hunting": Rajasthan High Court Imposes 10 Lakh Cost On Medical Institute For Filing Petition By Concealing About Its Dismissal By Jaipur Bench

Case Title: Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 178

The Principal bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has recently imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakh on a medical institution for filing a writ petition, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn at Jaipur Bench on 26.04.2022. The present petition at the Principal Seat was filed on the very next day i.e. on 27.04.2022, without disclosing the facts of the former petition.

Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while dismissing the petition, observed,

"Now-a-days, the practice of bench hunting is often noticed, however, it is least expected from the institute providing education for the higher courses to the students to involve in such practice. It is a very sorry state of affairs and the conduct of the petitioner– institution is highly condemnable and contemptuous too. It is not expected from any person approaching the Court to conceal the relevant facts and to make an attempt of mislead the Court."

4. Action Of Recovery By Income Tax Dept. Was Without Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court Imposes Cost Of Rs. 50,000 On The Dept.

Case Title: Rajendra Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 179

The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on the Income Tax department as the action of recovery was without jurisdiction.

The division bench of Justice Prakash Gupta and Justice Sameer Jain has directed the Assessing Officer to issue a refund to the assessee along with interest as specified in law. The department was directed to adjust an excess of 20% of the disputed demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 within a period of thirty days.

The petitioner/assessee contended that in terms of the order under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, the appeal was preferred by him immediately and as per the provisions of Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee cannot be termed as an assessee in default.

The petitioner contended that the recovery can only be initiated as per the statutory mechanism and that too by a Tax Recovery Officer as mandatory under Section 223 of the Income Tax Act. The refund was established on its own, disregarding departmental circulars, settled legal positions, natural justice principles, statutory mandates, and the provisions of Section 245 of the Income Tax Act.The department's act was arrogant and autocratic, lacking legal authority.

5. Bar On CLAT Mentor Navneet Singh Purohit Against Giving Law Entrance Coaching Restricted Only On Use Of "Law Prep" Properties: Rajasthan HC Clarifies

Case Title: Navneet Singh Purohit v. Law Prep Tutorial, Through Proprietor Shri Sagar Joshi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 180

A vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has disposed of an appeal filed by CLAT Mentor Navneet Singh Purohit, challenging an ex-parte order of the Trial court imposing teaching restrictions on him, in a civil suit filed by Law Prep Tutorials.

The Trial court had issued a temporary injunction against Navneet Singh, restraining him from running any business/ venture/ teaching service in relation to Law Entrance examination for a period of 2 years in Jaipur and Jodhpur districts, from the alleged date of expiry of the Franchisee Agreement i.e., 02.02.2022.

While disposing of his appeal, the High Court observed that the aforesaid restriction shall only apply qua material, premises, name and anything reflecting "Law Prep". The Court added that this order shall operate till the Trial court makes any fresh orders in accordance with law.

Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed,

" It is needless to say that the restriction of teaching imposed upon the appellant shall only be pertaining to the material, premises, name and anything reflecting "Law Prep". This order shall operate till the learned trial court makes any fresh orders in accordance with law."

6. Award Cannot Be Remitted To The Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 34 (4) Of The A&C Act, If No Reasons and Findings Are Recorded: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL versus Ajmer Smart City Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 181

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the arbitral award cannot be remitted back to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) if there are no findings recorded in the arbitral award on the contentious issues.

The Single Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur reiterated that discretionary powers under Section 34 (4) of the A&C Act cannot be exercised under the guise of additional reasons or for filling up the gaps in the reasoning. The Court held that in the absence of any findings on the contentious issues in the award, no amount of reasons can cure the defect in the award.

An arbitral award was challenged by the respondent/ award debtor Ajmer Smart City Limited by filing an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the Commercial Court. The petitioner/award holder Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria filed an application under Section 34 (4) of the A&C Act before the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court passed an order dismissing the application of the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court.

Other Important Updates

1. Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector Recruitment Exam: Rajasthan HC Orders Selection Board To Produce Expert Opinion In Plea Challenging Answer Key

Case Title: Laxman Singh Bhati v. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board

The Rajasthan High Court has recently ordered the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board to produce the expert committee opinion in relation to the questions of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector Recruitment Exam.

The order was passed on the plea filed by Laxman Singh Bhati, who had appeared for the said exam.

The plea prayed for directions to the respondents to delete two questions of different model papers from the final assessment and subsequently re-calculate marks of the petitioner. The plea also sought direction to the respondents to not delete one question from the final answer key and thereafter award the consequential marks to the petitioner.

The directions to change the answer of two questions were also sought in the plea. Subsequently, the plea prayed that results be revised and accordingly the petitioner be considered for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector according to his merit.

2. High Court Seeks Response From "Rajasthan Royals" Over Dues Owed To Police Dept

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State Of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court has recently asked franchise cricket team Rajasthan Royals to file a reply explaining its failure to pay over 850 police officials who were deployed during 2011 Indian Premier League (IPL) matches. The dues allegedly add up to approximately 6.99 crores.

The direction was issued on a suo moto case registered in April 2019, on the basis of a newspaper report published in Dainik Bhaskar, revealing that 850 to 980 police officials were deployed, including 18 senior officers belonging to the cadre of Rajasthan Police Services and 52 Inspectors, on the day the IPL match was held. The report stated that an amount of more than 6.99 Crore, due to the police force, has not been paid by the sponsors of IPL who earn huge revenue by holding the matches.

In furtherance, the Court had issued a show cause notice, as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus be not issued directing the Police Department to recover the outstanding amount due from the sponsors and organisers of IPL matches. The Court had also issued notices to the State of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Cricket Association (RCA) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).