Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: March 14 To March 20, 2022

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

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

1. '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.

2. '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."

3. 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.

4. 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."

5. 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."

6. [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.

Other Important Updates

1. 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."