Rajasthan High Court Annual Digest 2022 [Citations 1-258]
Rahul Garg
30 Dec 2022 5:00 PM IST
![Rajasthan High Court Annual Digest 2022 [Citations 1-258]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/12/27/750x450_451038-rajasthan-high-court-annual-digest-2022.webp "Rajasthan High Court Annual Digest 2022 [Citations 1-258]")
As the year 2022 comes to a close, LiveLaw brings to you a yearly round-up of judgments and orders of the Rajasthan High Court. This yearly digest includes 258 orders and judgments from both the Jodhpur and the Jaipur Benches of the Rajasthan High Court, listed in the order of LiveLaw citation index.Nominal IndexLaxmilal Salvi v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court 2022 LiveLaw...
As the year 2022 comes to a close, LiveLaw brings to you a yearly round-up of judgments and orders of the Rajasthan High Court.
This yearly digest includes 258 orders and judgments from both the Jodhpur and the Jaipur Benches of the Rajasthan High Court, listed in the order of LiveLaw citation index.
Nominal Index
Laxmilal Salvi v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 1
Seemajan Kalyan Samiti, Rajasthan v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 2
School Development Management Committee, Shri Hari Singh Senior Secondary School and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 3
D.K. Garg and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 4
Ramchandra Nath Siddh Son of Poos Nath Sidh v. Union of India and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 5
Dr. Karanjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 6
Chetan Choudhary v. Union of India and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 7
Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 8
Shobha and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 9
Madhuram and Others v. State of Rajasthan with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 10
Kunal Sharma and Another v. Union of India and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 11
Chunnilal and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 12
Smt Garima Sauda v. Goverdhan Singh and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 13
Abhimanyu Sharda and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 14
Pragya Prateek Shukla and Another v. State Of Rajasthan through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 15
Income Tax Contingent Employees Union and Another v. Union of India and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 16
LNJ Power Ventures Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 17
Suresh Thanvi v. State Of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 18
Sheela Dhobi v. Satish 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 19
Shobha Devi v. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 20
Kailash Chandra Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Others with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 21
Naresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 22
Lahar Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 23
Anita Suthar v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 24
Tej Singh and Others v. The State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 25
Bhagwati Prasad v. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 26
Tax Bar Association and Another v. Union of India and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 27
Dr. Gopal Choudhary v. UG/PG Ayush Counseling Board and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 28
Smt. Sayari and Others v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 29
The National Insurance Co. Ltd through its Regional Manager, Jaipur v. Mohini Devi and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 30
Shyam Seva Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 31
Meeta Agarwal v. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 32
Anupama Singh v. Badri Narayan Sharma and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 33
M/s Triveni Electrodes v. Union of India and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 34
United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt Soniya 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 35
Mohan Lal S/o Okha Ram v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 36
Parul Khurana v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 37
M/s S.K. Metal v. Assistant Commissioner, B II Enforcement Wing II, Department Of Commercial Taxes 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 38
Dr. Neha Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 39
Ashwini Chaturvedi v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur through Its Registrar General 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 40
Sudesh Taneja v. Income Tax Officer and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 41
Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 42
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Jodhpur through its Chairman v. The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 and the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Rajasthan) 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 43
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Kota v. Shyam @ Jagdish S/o Gopal Lal 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 44
M/s. Shera Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 45
Dr. Naveen Jakhar v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 46
Sunita Rani v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 47
Madhav Singh Mehru and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 48
Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Others, and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 49
Surendra Jain v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 50
Rituraj Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan and Others2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 51
Tanay Jain v. Union of India and Others2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 52
Nirmal Kumar Pitaliya v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 53
Rudresh Jhunjhunwala and Others v. Satish Kumar and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 54
New India Assurance Company Ltd., through Regional Manager v. Smt. Kanchan Devi 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 55
Rajasthan High Court Bar Association v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 56
Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Others, with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 57
Asharam @ Ashumal v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 58
Air Tree Foundation Society v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 59
Balaji Nagar Vikas Samiti, Through Its President Heera Lal Kulariya v. Jodhpur Development Authority 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 60
Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 61
Arvind Sharma v. North-West Railway and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 62
Lakhpat Ola v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 63
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Circle-A, Bharatpur Rajasthan v. M/s C.P. Agro Industries Roopwas, Bharatpur, Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 64
No. 970250021 Sep/driver Ramraj Meena v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 65
Vijay Narayan Sharma and Another v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 66
Hari Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 67
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Manhbar Devi 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 68
Smt. Parwati Devi W/O Late Shri Mool Singh v. Director (G) and Nodal Officer (PG) 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 69
Satya Narayan and Others v. The H.D.F.C. Irgo General Insurance Company Limited and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 70
Soniya Burdak v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 71
M/S Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 72
Ankit Sharma and Others v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 73
Tasleem Ahmed Khan v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 74
Rajkamal Basitha v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 75
Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Ankit Sharma and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 76
Rakesh Garg v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 77
Radhakrishan Meena v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 78
Union of India and Another v. Harendra Gawaria 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 79
Suresh v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 80
Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) v. State Of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 81
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. Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, through its Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 85
Vinod Sharma v. Smt. Shanti Devi and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 86
M/s B.r. Construction Company V. Additional Director 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 87
Gajendra Purbia and Another v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 88
Sawai Singh Sodha and Another v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 89
Dharmender Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Others 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 and Another v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 100
Prem v. Amar Jeet Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 101
Rajasthan Housing Board through Dy. Housing Commissioner and 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
Prem v. Amar Jeet Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 103
Ramratan Bishnoi v. 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 and Others v. Udai Singh Kumawat 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 108
Nand Kishore and Another v. Saleem Khan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 109
Ratan Devi and Another v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 110
T.C. Gupta v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 111
Sohan Singh Rao v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 112
Pacific Industries Ltd. v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 113
Lakshya Purohit v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 114
Pratap Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 115
Suo Moto, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench v. Anand Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 116
Laxman v. State Of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 117
State, Through PP v. Atmaram and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 118
Anshul Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 119
Jal Grahan Vikas Sanstha, Riwadi, District Jaisalmer Through Its President Mathar Khan v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 120
Mohammed Amin Through His Son Zulkafil Amin Ansari v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 121
Nand Lal Through His Wife Rekha v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 122
Kavita Bhargava v. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.) 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 123
Akheraj v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 124
Jagdish Prasad Meena v. The State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 125
Suresh Sharma and Another 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 and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 129
Deepak Kumar Gupta and Others .v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 130
Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State Of Rajasthan and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 131
Kamalkant and Others 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, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 133
Girdhari Singh Through His Father Kishor Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 134
Haider Khan v. Union of India and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 135
Suresh Balkrishna Jajra v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 136
Ratna v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 137
Kalu Ram Jangid v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 138
M/s Mangalam Arts through its partner Sh. Rajendra Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 139
Sudhir Bordiya v. State, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 140
State Bank Of India v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 141
Mahendra Singh and Others v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 142
Prahlad v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 143
Raman v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 144
M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited V. Assistant Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 145
Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 146
Neeraj Jain v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 147
Manisha Khator v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 148
Doli Mandir Sri Mahadev Ji (Pahadeshwar Mahadev), Ludrada Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer Through Its Devotee Shri Vikram Singh v. District Collector, Barmer and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 149
Vishal Kochar v. Smt. Pulkit Sahni and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 150
Sunita Meena v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through its Registrar General and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 151
Sanjay Ghiya v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 152
Anop Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 153
Sudarshan Purohit v. The Hon'ble High Court For Judicature Of Rajasthan and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 154
Bharat Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 155
Prem Chand Deshantri v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 156
Mahendra Yadav and Another v. Bhagwan Devi and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 157
Kumar Indu Bhushan v. Union of India and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 158
Azaz Khan v. N.I.A. through Special PP and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 159
Raju Singh v. Twinkle Kanwar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 160
Adarsh Shiksha Parishad Samiti and Another v. Gajanand Sharma and Others with other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 161
State of Rajasthan and Another v. M/s. Godhara Construction Company 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 162
Mumtaz Mohd. V District Collector Pali and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 163
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P v. Komal Lodha 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 164
Simorna v. State of Rajasthan through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 165
M/s Vivek Pharmachem (India) Ltd. v. State Of Rajasthan and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 166
Om Prakash Kumawat v. Hero Housing Finance Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 167
Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer v. M/s. Punusumi India Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 168
Chandra Bhal Singh v. State Of Raj And Others and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 169
Pradeep Kumar and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 170
Hemraj v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 171
Mangal Das through LRS v. Amar Singh through LRS 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 172
Fula @ Fulchand v. State Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 173
Neha Mathur and Another v. Dr. Arvind Kishore with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 174
Gourav Sharma and Another v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 175
Amit Swami and Others v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
General Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur and Another v. Sonu and Another with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
Dhanwantri Institute of Medical Science v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
Rajendra Kumar v. 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 v. Ajmer Smart City Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
Hemant Nahta v. The Honble Speaker, Rajasthan Assembly and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
Geetanjali Medical College And Hospital v. The Union of India with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
Bhim Saini @ Bhimraj Saini v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
Raju @ Rajkumar Through His Brother Sh. Sharwarmal v. State and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
Sarvjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
Richa Dharu v. Hemant Panwar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
Smt Kamla v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and Another v. Sharda 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
Manisha Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
Bhavin Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
Bheru Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
Chitrank Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
Bhan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
Victim v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
Gopi Kishan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 197
Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Another v. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
Pooja Gurjar and Another v. State Of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 199
Jaswant Singh and Others v. Staff Selection Board, Jaipur and Others2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
Puneet Mohnot v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jodhpur 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
Gurjant Singh v. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur & Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 203
Vimlesh Bansal v. Ashok Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 204
Kamal Chand Bothra v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 206
Asharam @ Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
Smt. Rashmi Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 210
Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
Karan Johar v. State, Through PP and Another with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
Madhu Saini & Others v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
Jyotsana Rathore v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
Ramesh Chandra Patel v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
Bhanwarlal v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 216
Vishnu Oil Mill Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 217
Abdul Majeed v. Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 218
Smt. Rekha Kumari v. Hemendra Choudhary @ Hemraj 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
Dhanwantri Institute of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan and Others.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 220
State of Rajasthan and Others v. Rekha Kumari and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
Punjab National Bank and Another v. Mukesh Kumar Soni 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
Rahul Jain and Others v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
M/s. Shrimali Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 224
Gram Panchayat, Dujana Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur District Pali, Through Its Sarpanch Smt. Panku Devi v. Union of India and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 225
Ratna Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 226
Sunil Bhati v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 227
Malik Builders v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 228
Simran Raj @ Salma Nat v. Union of India and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 229
In Re Tal Chappar Sanctuary, Sujangarh (Churu) 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 230
Priyanka Shrimali v. State of Rajasthan and Others with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 231
Kastur Chand v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others LiveLaw 2022 (Raj) 232
Parmesh Chand Yadav v. Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 233
Surya Wires Private Limited v. Rajasthan Skills and Livelihoods Development Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 234
Dr. Arvind Kishore v. Neha Mathur and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 235
Anand Shankar v. The Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur Through Managing Director and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 236
Rajnikant and Others. v. The Secretary To His Excellency The Governor Of Rajasthan, Governors Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Jaipur and Others with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 237
Sudershan Lal Gupta and Others v. Union of India and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 238
Mr Murugan Mp S and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 239
Dr. Kamlesh Sharma and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 240
Niranjan v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 241
Rituraj Singh Rathore and Another v. Principal Secretary, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 242
Chandra Devi and another v. State Of Rajasthan and others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 243
Adam Godwin and others v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 244
Syed Gohar Husain Chisti v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 245
Rahul v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 246
Sant Vaidehi Balabh Dev Acharyaji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 247
ADJ, Gulabpura, Bhilwara v. Rameshchandra 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 248
A.H. Marble Crafts, Through Proprietor Mohammad Afzal v. Commissioner Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 249
Gaytri and Another v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 250
M/s Shree Ram Junawa Industries v. M/s Rounak Steels 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 251
Kshama Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 252
Pooja Agarwal v. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 253
Suraj v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 254
The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another v. Sangeeta Varhat and others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 255
Hemendra Puri v. Jai Narayan Vyas University and others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 256
Tarun Vaishnav v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
Madhu Saini and Others v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 258
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Laxmilal Salvi v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 1
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur dismissed a plea challenging the conditions on candidates to supply certified copies of those 10 judgments of which the candidate had furnished particulars while submitting online application form.
As per the petitioner, this requirement was not a part of the recruitment rules, and therefore, could not be inserted through the recruitment notification.
The court observed, "Clause (f) of paragraph 6 of the main notification thus traces its root to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 36 of the said rules and is thus in consonance with the statutory recruitment rules. Rule 36(1) is not under challenge. The condition, therefore, cannot be set aside."
Case Title: Seemajan Kalyan Samiti, Rajasthan v. Union of India
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 2
A division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur dismissed a public interest litigation seeking direction to the Union government that ten kilometres of area from international border line (India and Pakistan) should be declared as no mining/commercial/industrial zone. The court observed that it is a sensitive policy matter and not a subject matter of decision by the High Court in a writ petition.
The bench comprising of Akil Kureshi, CJ and Rameshwar Vyas J. observed,
"In our opinion, these are sensitive policy matters. What should be the buffer zone for permitting mining operations and other commercial operations near the international border, cannot be subject matter of decision by the High Court in a writ petition.
In addition to the above, the plea also seek permission for mining lease already granted should be cancelled. Further, it was also prayed that the decision to shut down Border Intelligence Chowkis be reversed.
Case Title: School Development Management Committee, Shri Hari Singh Senior Secondary School and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 3
While allowing the plea filed by the petitioner, the single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur held that the impugned decision of the State seeking to convert the school in question from a Hindi medium to an English Medium school with immediate effect, is fortiori, violative of Article 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.
Justice Dinesh Mehta held that English, as a medium of instruction, cannot be thrusted upon a child even by a legislation enacted by the State Government, much less by a policy decision.
The present petition, filed by School Development Management Committee of Shri Hari Singh Senior Secondary School, Pilwa Panchayat Samiti Dechu, Jodhpur, challenging the decisions of Sept 2021 taken by the state government which converted petitioners' Hindi Medium school to an English Medium School - Mahatma Gandhi Government School (English Medium).
Case Title: D.K. Garg and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 4
A division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur the order of the Power Sector Companies by which the entire Cadre of Feeder Manager in 5 Power Sector Companies of Rajasthan was merged with the Cadre of Assistant Engineer (OandM) and they were adjusted in the seniority list of 2010-11 and 2011-12.
The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rameshwar Vyas observed that it is settled position of law that equating the posts or merging the posts or grant of seniority lies within the exclusive domain of the employer or the State Government. The scope of interference or judicial review is very limited. Court added that interference of court in policy matters is permissible only when there is a lacuna or procedural lapse in the decision making process.
Case Title: Ramchandra Nath Siddh Son of Poos Nath Sidh v. The Union of India and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 5
A single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur directed Union government to keep a post vacant for candidate suffering from Cubitus Valgu and having Tattoo Mark in pursuance of CISF Examination, 2019, till further orders.
After hearing the petitioner on interim relief, Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal ruled, "Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material on record, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondents to keep a post vacant in pursuance of examination, 2019, till further orders."
Case Title: Dr. Karanjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 6
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur dismissed a plea challenging the RPSC procedure for the selection of Assistant ProfessOthers in government colleges for a total number of 918 posts. The question arose before the bench that whether or not the qualifications and the method of recruitment, as provided in the advertisement and which are followed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), are in consonance with the UGC guidelines.
The bench of Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal noted, "We may recall, more than 1,50,000 candidates have applied for 918 posts. As noted, UGC regulations have not provided any cut-off for shortlisting the candidates on the basis of scores to be allotted in terms of the table. Even if we permit the degree of latitude to the recruiting agency and expect calling for oral interview candidates 5 times the number of notified vacancies, this would require conducting the oral interview close to 5,000 candidates".
Case Title: Chetan Choudhary v. Union of India and Others
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 deposit money of approximately Rs. 8,000 Crore.
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India and Others
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).
Case Title: Shobha and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others
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.
Case Title: Madhuram and Others 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."
Case Title: Kunal Sharma and Another v. Union of India and Others
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."
Case Title: Chunnilal and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 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.
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
Case Title: Abhimanyu Sharda and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 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".
Case Title: Pragya Prateek Shukla and another v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 15
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."
Case Title: Income Tax Contingent Employees Union and Another v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 16
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a writ petition filed in representative capacity without proper authorization or resolution is not maintainable.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, observed, "We are of the firm view that the writ petition has been filed without proper authorization/resolution and hence, the same is not maintainable."
In furtherance, the court dismissed the writ petition purportedly filed on behalf of Income Tax Contingent Employees Union as not maintainable, in the absence of proper authorization.
Case Title: LNJ Power Ventures Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 17
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that power of judicial review vested in High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is one of the basic features of the Constitution and any legislation cannot override or curtail such jurisdiction.
Justice Pushpendra Bhati further held that High Courts, while exercising the power under Article 226, would take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment.
Case Title: Suresh Thanvi v. State Of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 18
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that land reserved for the public park in question shall not be allowed for commercial purposes like marriages/ parties etc. The decision was delivered in a public interest litigation filed by one Suresh Thanvi.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "It is hereby directed that the respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur shall ensure that the land in question shall be strictly used as a public park and no deviation shall be permitted in this regard. No commercial activities viz. marriages/ parties, etc. shall be allowed thereupon".
Case Title: Sheela Dhobi v. Satish
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 19
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a joint application filed by the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband for waiver of six months cooling off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce by mutual consent.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed, " In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the parties are sufficiently educated and are aware of their rights...as they have mutually decided to end their matrimony finding no hope/chance of reconciliation, I am of the opinion that their application for waiver of the statutory period of six months specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 deserves acceptance."
The parties had approached the court after being aggrieved with the order passed by the Family Court, Bhilwara, which on 16 Dec, 2021 dismissed the aforesaid prayer of the parties.
Case Title: Shobha Devi v. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 20
In a significant judgment, the single bench of Rajasthan High Court held that the married daughter of a deceased employee falls within the definition of 'dependents' for compassionate appointment.
"The perception of the daughter, after marriage no longer being a part of her father's household and becoming an exclusive part of her husband's household, is an outdated view and mindset."Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, observed.
The court observed that any discrimination between unmarried and married daughter and married son and married daughter would be in clear violation of Article 14 ,15 and 16 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Kailash Chandra Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Others, with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 21
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that the employees of Central Co-Operative Bank, who remained out of service due to the latter's 'illogical' decision reducing the age of superannuation, are entitled to the salary for the said period. The Bank had passed a resolution, reducing the superannuation age from 60 to 58 years.
Justice Rekha Borana, observed, "Petitioners would be entitled to the salary for the period during which they remained out of service. The same shall be paid to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order".
While allowing the petition, the court ruled that if the salary is not paid within the said period, it would then be payable along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Case Title: Naresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 22
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that validity of an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be examined in a writ of habeas corpus.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta made it clear that such an order passed under the JJ Act is valid and thus, the person cannot be said to be under illegal confinement for the purpose of issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
" It is trite to state that validity of an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be examined in a writ of habeas corpus. Apparently, as the corpus has been sent to the Balika Gruh, Jodhpur under a valid order of the Child Welfare Committee in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, she is not under any kind of illegal confinement."
The present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for production of one Mst. 'P', claiming that she is his legally wedded wife and that she has been wrongfully confined.
Case Title: Lahar Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 23
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the state government to decide on a war widow's plea seeking grant of possession and document of title of the land allotted to her in 1991, under the relevant scheme.
Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that the petitioner is the widow of a martyr, who sacrificed his life for safety and dignity of the country. Thus, the least the State can do is either hand over the possession of the allotted land or search for an alternate piece of land.
It directed the petitioner to file a representation before the District Collector, Pali and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali along with relevant documents and order copy of the Court's decision within two weeks.
Case Title: Anita Suthar v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 24
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that special bona fide residence is to be reckoned from the native place of residence of candidate and his parents and has nothing to do with marriage.
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "Special bona fide residence or residence is to be reckoned from the native place of residence of the candidate and his parents. It has nothing to do with marriage."
The court opined that the respondents cannot deny the petitioner Special Bonafide Resident Certificate (TSP Area) simply because she has moved out of Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) Area, as a consequence of her marriage.
Case Title: Tej Singh and Others v. The State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 25
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that writ petition against rejection of temporary injunction application by trial court is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed, "A writ petition against rejection of TI application by the trial Court is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as a hierarchy of appellate authorities have been provided in the (Rajasthan Tenancy) Act of 1955".
In the present matter, the petitioners had instituted a suit for declaration of rights under Section 88 along with an injunction application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955. The same was however rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 29.12.2021.
Case Title: Bhagwati Prasad v. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines and Geology and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 26
The Rajasthan High Court has asked the authorities concerned to objectively examine the grievances raised in a writ petition pertaining to discharge of industrial effluents in the Railmagra Dam and take appropriate action within a period of two months.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed that the authorities shall be served a copy of the writ petition in the form of a representation. These authorities include Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur; the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jaipur and the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Rajsamand.
The bench further ruled, "Upon receiving the same, these authorities shall objectively examine the petitioners' grievances and pass a reasoned order/ take appropriate action thereupon, within a period of two months from the date of submission thereof."
Case Title: Tax Bar Association and Another v. Union Of India and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 27
The Rajasthan High Court has expressed its disinclination to entertain a public interest litigation seeking direction to the Income Tax Department to remove all the defects and glitches on its official portal. The court left it on the administration to deal with the issues at its level.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana observed, " At this stage, we leave it to the administration to deal with these issues at its level. We are hopeful that proper resolution of the difficulties of assessees would be made at the level of the administration itself without the requirement of Court's intervention."
Case Title: Dr. Gopal Choudhary v. UG/PG Ayush Counseling Board and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 28
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Ayush Counseling Board to allot appropriate college to the petitioner, an Ayurveda aspirant, against the vacant seats, for pursuing his PG course in the academic Session 2020-21.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed, " This Court is of the view that interest of justice would be better served if the petitioner is accorded admission in Ayurveda PG course. Keeping the seats vacant serves nobody's cause – it is a wastage of resources."
Case Title: Smt. Sayari and Others v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 29
While taking a lenient view, a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court reduced sentence awarded to an 82 year old woman charged under 498A IPC to the period already served by her which is nearly two and half months.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani observed, "We are of the view that as appellant Sayari has already attained the age of 82 years, the sentences awarded to her be reduced to the period already undergone by her which is nearly two and half months".
Affirming the conviction of the woman, the court ordered that for the offence under Section 498A IPC, as recorded by the trial court and passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, Pali, the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by her..
Case Title: The National Insurance Co. Ltd, through its Regional Manager, Jaipur v. Mohini Devi and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 30
Rajasthan High Court has recently ruled that appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not maintainable in absence of framing any substantial question of law.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while dismissing the appeal, observed, "I do not find any ground to call for any interference on the factual findings recorded by the learned Commissioner. Since no substantial question of law has been formulated in the memo of appeal, hence, this appeal is not maintainable in view of the proviso attached to Section 30 of the Act of 1923."
The court pursued the proviso attached to Section 30 of the Act of 1923 and observed that appeal shall lie against any order passed by the learned Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
Case Title: Shyam Seva Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 31
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that mere formation of a committee cannot take away rights of a private college/institution, which is otherwise eligible and entitled for enhancement of the intake capacity.
The court opined that the decision of forming a five member committee of the Ministers of the State Government, in order to take policy decisions in relation to establishment of and setting standard for private colleges, is absolutely misplaced.
The court observed that the state's action of not permitting the enhancement of the intake capacity of the petitioner institution is arbitrary and illegal.
Case Title: Meeta Agarwal v. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 32
A single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that under section 21 of Civil Procedure, Code, 1908, the objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction shall be taken at the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "It is settled position of law as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction shall be taken at the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity".
Notably, the court observed that adjournments in the suit should not be granted without just cause and when unnecessarily warranted be, by a reasoned order or on a proper application in writing there being filed to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Case Title: Anupama Singh v. Badri Narayan Sharma and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 33
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has observed that a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable, if two interpretations are possible, and if the action in question is not contumacious.
The judgment was delivered in the contempt plea filed for non-compliance of court's order which granted appointment and consequential benefits to the petitioner, a female health worker.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "It is not in dispute that as far as directions to allow the petitioner to join services as Female Health Worker had already been complied with and further according to the respondents, the consequential benefits flowing pursuant to the order of appointment of petitioner dated 08.07.2000 have also been accorded vide order dated 25.10.2011".
Rajasthan High Court Upholds Section 54 CGST Act Pertaining To Tax Refund
Case Title: M/s Triveni Electrodes v. Union Of India and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 34
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has upheld the vires of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The same pertains to Refund of tax.
Noting that the Supreme Court has already upheld the vires of the statutory provision in question, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Sameer Jain, observed,
" We may note one development, namely, that the Supreme Court in the Union of India and others V.. VKC Footsteps India Pvt.Ltd. , has upheld the vires of the statutory provisions under consideration. That being the situation, the petitioner's challenge to the statutory provisions must come to an end ".
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt Soniya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 35
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur upheld the decision of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Alwar which, while relying on the 'principle of pay and recover', directed the insurance company to first pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the vehicle owner.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed, "Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove that the declaration of cancellation/ nullifying the driving licence of the Driver was ever brought to the knowledge of the owner of vehicle and it is not proved that the owner was guilty of negligence in not following the due care and caution to fulfil the conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in following the principle of "pay and recover".
Case Title: Mohan Lal S/o Okha Ram v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 36
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt.
The observation was made while hearing an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against the judgment of the trial court, whereby appellants were convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment.
A division of Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "It is clear that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the trial court that the defence failed to prove that the accused was affected with such mental ailment, which prevented him from understanding the consequences of his acts, is totally unjustified".
Case Title: Parul Khurana v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 37
The Rajasthan High Court observed that there is nothing in law that permits a candidate to apply in the 'Divorcee Female' category in the expectancy that a divorce decree would be granted by the Court.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed,
"For a person, applying in the said category, the status of being divorced was imperative. There is nothing in law which can permit a candidate to apply in the said category in the expectancy that a decree would be granted".
The petitioner had filed a writ petition assailing the notice whereby her candidature was rejected as she did not possess the decree of divorce on the last date of submission of the online application form for the post of Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi and English) in the District Courts and the District Legal Services Authorities.
Case Title: M/s S.k. Metal v. Assistant Commissioner, B II Enforcement Wing II, Department Of Commercial Taxes
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 38
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the vires of Section 70 of Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 which provides for Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.
After perusing the provision, the division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain ruled, " The provision thus while empowering the proper officer to summon a person to give evidence or to produce documents, controls such exercise of powers by providing that the summons may be issued where a proper officer considers it necessary that such person is required to give evidence or to produce certain documents. These powers are not thus unguided or uncanalised."
The court recalled that Section 14C of the Central Excise Act and Section 108 of the Customs Act contain similar provisions authorizing the appropriate officer with the power to summon attendance of a witness for recording statement or for production of documents.
Case Title: Dr. Neha Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 39
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal filed by several doctOthers directing the respondent authorities to consider their experience of service in Government hospitals of remote and difficult areas till 31.10.2021, instead of 30.09.2021.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain, observed, "The policy of the State is to grant incentive. No candidate has a vested right to claim such incentives, that too dehors the State policy. Such cut off date cannot be kept fluctuating. The date of counselling would depend on several factors. The suggestion that experience gained by the candidate right till the first date of counselling is therefore not acceptable. There is yet another angle to this issue."
The court opined that grant of incentive itself is a policy matter and based on the discretion of State authorities and any extension for considering the experience is also part of such discretionary exercise of the powers. The court added that unless it is shown that such discretion is exercised arbitrarily or malafidely this Court would not interfere in such policy matters.
Rajasthan Judicial Services: High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Answer Key Of 2021 Prelims Exam
Case Title: Ashwini Chaturvedid v. High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 40
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the final results of the Civil Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services (Preliminary Examination).
The exam was conducted on 28.11.2021 and the final result for the same was declared on 11.01.2022.
The present plea was filed by one Ashwini Chaturvedi. She had challenged the administration's decision on the correct choice in relation to question No.80 and its decision to delete question No.81, through which the petitioner missed out clearing the RJS preliminary examination's cut-off only by 1 mark.
A division bench of Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, observed, " We do not think that the petitioner has made out any case for interference. As is well settled through series of judgments of the Supreme Court, interference by the High Court in specialized fields where recruitment is being made through specialized agencies, should be the minimum."
Case Title: Sudesh Taneja v. Income Tax Officer, and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 41
Providing relief to a batch of petitioners, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court quashed notices issued by the Assessing Officers under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act of 1961) for reopening assessments for various assessment years.
The petitioners have also challenged portions of two notifications issued by CBDT clarifying that provisions of Sections 148, 149 and 151 of the Act as on 31.03.2021 shall apply for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 148 for the past period. According to the petitioners, this explanation is beyond the jurisdiction of CBDT.
Chief Justice Akil Quresh and Justice Sameer Jain ruled, "A notice which had become time barred prior to 01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, would not be revived by virtue of the application of Section 149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021. All the notices issued in the present cases are after 01.04.2021 and have been issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act and are therefore invalid."
Case Title: Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 42
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that alienation of a property during pendency of a suit is null and void and hence, an application filed by the subsequent purchaser for impleadment as a necessary and proper party is not untenable in law.
Justice Sameer Jain, observed, "The provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the judgments cited at bar by learned counsel for the respondents, in loud voice, have held that alienation having been made in favour of any party during pendency of the suit, was hit by doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and hence, the said transaction is nullity, illegal and void and the Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that in the said situation, the application filed by the subsequent purchaser for impleading as necessary and proper party is not tenable."
Essentially, as per the petitioner, he along with proforma-respondents purchased a land from one Rajani Upadhaya and was never informed about pendency of suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed in favour of the latter.
Case Title: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Jodhpur, Through Its Chairman v. The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972, And The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 43
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that an employee must receive gratuity, either under the Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 or under the Regulations framed by the bank, whichever is more beneficial. However, an employee can not choose computation of gratuity under one statute and seek benefits of other provisions under another statute.
The observation was made by a division bench of Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Rameshwar Vyas while dealing with a clutch of petitions raising a question as to whether employees of the Gramin Bank can claim benefits the 1972 Act or under Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, or both.
It held,
"the scheme of gratuity under the Act of 1972 and under the regulations framed by the bank are different. For example, the Act of 1972 prescribes the ceiling beyond which the gratuity would not be paid irrespective of the computation. There is no such ceiling prescribed under the regulations. However, the regulations have other inherent limitations in computation of gratuity such as the gratuity computation would not exceed 15 months' salary upto 30 years of service, after which an additional benefit of half month's salary would be added to the payable gratuity. The employee, therefore, can claim gratuity either under the Act of 1972 or under the regulations framed by the bank, but cannot claim the benefit under both the statutes."
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Kota v. Shyam @ Jagdish S/o Gopal Lal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 44
The Rajasthan High Court has held that under the scheme of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the Compensation Commissioner is the last authority to decide any claim on facts. No appeal lies against its order unless a substantial question of law is involved.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand therefore dismissed an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bundi, for not qualifying any substantial question of law under.
It observed, " Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed."
Case Title: M/s. Shera Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 45
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside e-auction notices issued by the Water Department which demanded additional performance security for unbalanced bids, as arbitrary and illegal.
The court directed the respondents-state to permit the petitioners to perform the contract in accordance with law, without insisting upon additional performance security.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, ruled,
"A look at the provision given in Rule 75 of the Rules of 2013 shows that it provides for performance security only and does not envisage any other security in the name of additional performance security or otherwise. According to this Court, all the terms and conditions of a bid document are supposed to conform to the statutory provisions...The letter of the respondents and corresponding condition in the e-bid document requiring the petitioners to furnish additional performance security are hereby quashed."
Case Title: Dr. Naveen Jakhar v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 46
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that that the writ Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, may not interfere in every decision that is taken on the administrative side and fixing of a cut-off date, will be out of purview of a writ Court until the same is either fixed by keeping in mind the whimsical considerations or fixed in a mala fide manner
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur ruled, "This Court finds that the writ Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, may not interfere in every decision that is taken on the administrative side and fixing of a cut-off date, will be out of purview of a writ Court until the same is either fixed by keeping in mind the whimsical considerations or fixed in a malafide manner."
The court observed that State Government has found that rendering of service in remote, difficult and rural areas entitles a person to certain incentive/bonus marks, then the decision of the State Government, in its wisdom and as a matter of policy, to confer such benefit upto a particular date cannot be termed as whimsical or malafide.
Case Title: Sunita Rani v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 47
The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that females outside the State on migrating to Rajasthan post marriage may not be entitled to the benefit of reservation in public employment in the State, on account of being a member of a SC or ST or OBC in another State.
However, they can avail of other benefits as being an member of a reserved category, if the scheme envisages domicile or residence as entitlement.
The observation was made in a writ petition filed by one Sunita Rani, being aggrieved with the action of the respondents- Sub Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar of Hanumangarh for not accepting her application for issuance of a caste certificate in her favour declaring that she is a member of Scheduled Caste (SC).
Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled, "So it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled for reservation in public employment in the State of Rajasthan being the resident of State of Punjab, however, she can get the other benefits as being an SC on the strength of the certificate if the scheme envisages domicile or residence as entitlement."
Case Title: Madhav Singh Mehru and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 48
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the question of what should be the educational qualification and experience requirement for appointment to a public post are the matters to be decided by the Government authorities and as an employer, the State administration is best suited to frame its rules to fulfil the requirements of a post in question.
The division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas observed, "Essentially, what should be the education qualification and experience requirement for appointment to a public post are the matters to be decided by the Government authorities. As an employer, the State administration is best suited to frame its rules to fulfil the requirements of a post in question."
Case Title: Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Others, and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 49
The Rajasthan High Court has asked the State administration to set up a high powered committee, who would on a permanent basis monitor the infrastructural and other related issues concerning Government Sanskrit schools in the state.
The Bench of Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas observed that though the issues raised by the petitioners are genuine and valid, however, in public interest jurisdiction it is impossible for it to engage itself into micro management.
" The duty of the Court is to catalyse the government mechanism to take appropriate steps. It is simply not possible for the Court to minutely monitor every single aspect of public administration. The Government has the mechanism, wherewithal as also duty and responsibility to carry out such functions. Every failure of administration does not necessarily have cure only in law to be enforced by the Court," it observed.
Case Title: Surendra Jain v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 50
The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday made significant observations on the Covid-19 situation in the state. It observed that like many other states in the country, Rajasthan is fire-fighting against the third rise, but by all accounts, the situation is not out of control.
Hoping for a downward trend in cases, the division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas closed a PIL concerning Covid-19 management in the state.
The PIL was filed by one Surendra Jain last year, seeking directions to the State authorities to ensure sufficient and equitable distribution of life saving drugs and medical equipments such as Remdesivir, Oxygen cylinders etc. He also sought directions for appropriate treatment and management at Covid hospitals.
Case Title: Rituraj Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 51
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court refused to give directions in a plea seeking protection and maintenance of wildlife to control man-animal conflict and rescue and animals in distress in kumbhalgarh and todgarh wildlife sanctuaries.
Through this petition, the petitioner has taken up the cause of proper protection and maintenance of wildlife in and around Kumbhalgarh and Todgarh wildlife sanctuaries.
In particular, according to the petitioner for want of sufficient staff and equipments, the forest department has found it extremely difficult to control the situations of man-animal conflicts as well as to take prompt action for rescue of wild animals in distress.
Case Title: Tanay Jain v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 52
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that Black Fungus infections and the spread had not been stated to be of such a magnitude that it has been considered to be a pandemic.
Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Birendra Kumar, while refusing to give any direction on the plea, observed:
"An issue of providing compensation for victims Black-Fungus infective virus has also been raised. On this count we do not think that we have to pass any order at this stage because such kind of infections and the spread had not been stated to be of such a magnitude that it has been considered to be a pandemic."
In this matter, a public interest litigation has been filed by one Tanay Jain seeking issuance of directions for payment of ex-gratia compensation to those who lost their family members due to Covid-19 pandemic.
Case Title: Nirmal Kumar Pitaliya v. State Of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 53
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea filed by the Chairman of Municipal Board Badi Sadri challenging his suspension by the state government.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed,
"The allegation against the petitioner is acceptance of bribe, in discharge of his official duties, through his brother-in-law for clearing the bills of the complainant. The order of suspension states that if the petitioner is not suspended there is likelihood of him influencing the inquiry and the evidence. The said reason spelt out in the order of suspension is not only indicative of application of mind but also fulfils the requirement of recording reasons. According to this Court, the reason given thereunder is sufficient to justify the suspension of the petitioner."
Essentially, on a complaint, the police apprehended Kush Sharma, brother in-law of the petitioner while accepting a sum of Rs.2 lacs allegedly as a bribe on behalf of the petitioner. An FIR was lodged on 26.05.2021 and both of them were implicated. The state government, on information sent by Anti-Corruption Deptt, placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 05.07.2021. Aggrieved by the suspension order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 09.12.2021. It is alleged that petitioner has not been served with any notice from the State Government in relation to any preliminary inquiry.
Case Title: Rudresh Jhunjhunwala and Others v. Satish Kumar and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 54
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that the appellate court cannot interfere when the trial court has exercised its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction to grant the temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, while disposing of the plea, observed,
"This Court is of considered view that this is not a fit case where the appellate court should exercise its power to interfere with the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court. Thus, no interference is called for with the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed."
Case Title: New India Assurance Company Ltd., through Regional Manager v. Smt. Kanchan Devi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 55
Reversing the findings of a Motor Accident Tribunal which had fixed 50% contributory negligence on the truck driver against which the claimants' car had dashed, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the car insurance company to reimburse the payments made by insurer of the truck.
Justice Birendra Kumar held that the Tribunal had passed the impugned order without taking note of the fact that the driver of the truck had died two days before the accident and the claimants' car had dashed into the truck which was in the seizure of the police and was parked in soiled portion of the road leaving the pitch road completely free for movement.
The bench thus ordered, "Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside to the extent that the Tribunal has fixed the liability to pay compensation on respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. owner and insurer of the truck. In fact, the liability was against the owner and insurer of car during use whereof the accident took place...Accordingly, the same is set aside and it is ordered that the entire liability to pay compensation goes against the owner and insurer of the car. Since the car was insured with respondent No.12 it is liable to pay entire compensation payable to the claimants...It has been informed that the appellant (truck insurer) has already paid Rs.5,10,500/- to the claimant. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to be reimbursed by respondent No.12."
Case Title: Rajasthan High Court Bar Association V. State Of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 56
The Rajasthan High Court restrained state from issuance of registration certificate to Rajasthan High Court Senior Lawyers Association, Jaipur till further orders. The plea was filed by Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur through its General Secretary Adv. Girraj Prasad Sharma.
Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal, ruled, "Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned Senior Counsel and the material on record, the respondents No.1 and 2 are restrained from issuing registration certificate in favour of the respondent No.3 and 4, till further orders."
The court issued notice in this plea challenging the registration of 'Rajasthan High Court Senior Lawyers Association, Jaipur' in the name of society as it being violative of Section 3 read with Clause 17 of the Schedule of The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
Case Title: Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Others, with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 57
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the government has authority in terms of Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 as it stood at the relevant time and Section 90-A as it stands today to regularise unauthorised conversions of agricultural lands.
The division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed, "Insofar as the Government's desire to regularise the existing land uses, the same falls into broad categories, (a) where agricultural land is put to non-agricultural use without permission and (b) where such lands as aforesaid or other lands of nonagricultural character which have been put to uses other than land use specified in the development plans. So far as clause (a) category of uses are concerned, per se we find no illegality in the approach of the Government. The Government has the authority in terms of Section 90B of the Act of 1956 as it stood at the relevant time and Section 90-A as it stands today to regularise such unauthorised land conversions."
Case Title: Asharam @ Ashumal v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 58
The Rajasthan High Court recently issued an order to summon Additional Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Ajay Pal Lamba for recording his evidence as a court witness in connection with Asaram's appeal challenging his conviction by lower Court in a minor's rape case.
The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani issued the order while allowing an application filed by Asaram under Section 391 CrPC [Appellate Court's power to take further evidence or direct it to be taken] to summon Senior IPS Officer Lamba as a court witness and to record his evidence, based on certain excerpts of the book co-authored by Lamba.
Case Title: Air Tree Foundation Society v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 59
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that mere general averments/allegations based on newspaper reports should not and will not be a cause for taking cognizance in public interest.
This petition was filed with a prayer for direction to the respondents-state that all the borewells in the State should be covered so that through accident there is no casualty of human beings or animals.
The plea was filed by Air Tree Foundation Society, through its Secretary, Shri Manish Sharma.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, while disposing the petition, observed,
"Mere general averments/allegations based on newspaper reports should not and will not be a cause for taking cognizance in public interest."
Case Title: Balaji Nagar Vikas Samiti, Through Its President Heera Lal Kulariya v. Jodhpur Development Authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 60
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that the disputed question of fact regarding title of the plot in question cannot be gone into by the High Court while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The court opined that the issues require a decision of civil court.
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed,
"In this view of the matter, manifestly, the disputed question of fact regarding title of the plot in question cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The issues definitely require decision of the civil court. Hence, the civil court is required to expedite the proceedings in the pending TI application."
Case Title: Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 61
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the state government to take steps to treat the transgender community as socially and educationally backward class of citizens and extend all kinds of reservations in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.
The division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas has granted four months' time to complete this exercise.
The development ensued in a writ petition filed by one Ganga Kumari, seeking effective reservation to the transgenders in terms of the mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of National Legal Services Authority V.. Union of India and Others.
Case Title: Arvind Sharma v. North-West Railway and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 62
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation opposing the decision of the railway authorities to close down the railway senior secondary school at Abu Road, which was operating since the year 1862.
Noting that the school has been running in losses due to dwindling number of students, the division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kuresh and Justice Sudesh Bansal observed,
" It is rather unfortunate that the school which has been in existence since over a century, may have to be closed down. It does disturb us that in an area where educational facilities have still not fully developed to the desired extent, one public school is under closure. However such sentimental issues cannot govern our judicial discretion. The railway authority which has to run the school is in best position to decide its future. Unless the decision is shown to be malafide or opposed to any of the legal principles, the Court would not substitute its wisdom or desire for that of the authority. With a heavy heart we dismiss this petition."
The Court however made it clear that the decision to close the school shall not be implemented till the end of the current academic term.
Case Title: Lakhpat Ola v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 63
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has observed that in a public interest litigation, the petitioner is not absolved of producing at least a basic proof of the allegations levelled by him.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,
"Even otherwise we find the petition with long pleadings are long in averments but short in contents. The allegations made in the petition would require supporting evidence. Even in a public interest petition the petitioner is not absolved of producing at least a basic proof of his allegations."
The present public interest litigation was filed by one Lakhpat Ola, alleging that certain officials of the Government have embezzled public funds by committing irregularities in public works contracts.
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Circle-A, Bharatpur Rajasthan v. M/s C.P. Agro Industries Roopwas, Bharatpur, Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 64
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has observed that provisions of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 have been enacted to provide remedy for loss of revenue and not to punish the offender for committing economic offence and, therefore, mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of such provision.
The court added that breach would attract levy of penalty whenever the goods in movement have travelled with an incomplete form.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while placing reliance in Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2007 (7) SCC 269] observed,
"Even the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that provisions have been enacted to provide remedy for loss of revenue and it is not enacted to punish the offender for committing economic offence and, therefore, mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of such provision. The breach would attract levy of penalty whenever the goods in movement have travelled with an incomplete form."
Case Title: No. 970250021 Sep/driver Ramraj Meena v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 65
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has refused to interfere in the disciplinary authority's decision, which dismissed CRPF Constable-petitioner from service as he did not report for duty on completion of leave period.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,
"In our view the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. We may recall, the petitioner was engaged as constable of CRPF which is a disciplined force. He remained unauthorisedly absent without sanctioned leave or communication to the department for about one year. This was a clear case of misconduct."
Case Title: Vijay Narayan Sharma and Another v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 66
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that no interference is permissible in exercise of powers of judicial review for matters pertaining to construction of public utility building, unless it is demonstrated that there is a flagrant violation of any provision of law/rules in the action of authorities or it suffer from mala fides.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled,
"It is the settled law that the matter regarding construction of a building of public utility is the domain of the Government and its functionaries and until and unless it is demonstrated that there is a flagrant violation of any provision of law/rules in the action of authorities or it suffer from mala fides, no interference is permissible in such administrative matters while exercising powers of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
The present writ petition was filed seeking directions to the respondent state to immediately stop or cancel the proposal/work of creating a new Gram Panchayat Building on land of Khasra No.3418/1. Alternatively, petitioners sought directions to the respondents to develop the existing Gram Panchayat Building by incorporating a closed school's land and that sanctioned budget of Rs.25.00 lacs be transferred for said purpose immediately. Petitioners alleged that the new
Case Title: Hari Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 67
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea seeking direction to the state government to treat the experience gained by the petitioner in Gujarat as eligible for award of bonus marks under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Rules, for recruitment to the post of Compounder / Nurse Junior Grade.
In furtherance, the court opined that the intention of the State is to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the enumerated schemes within the State of Rajasthan and not others.
Essentially, the petitioner, who is working with the Regional Ayurveda Research Institute, Ahmedabad (Gujarat), based on his experience certificate dated 1.7.2021, applied for the post and sought bonus marks for the experience as depicted in the experience certificate.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Manhbar Devi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 68
The Rajasthan High Court observed that any erroneous finding or any error of law cannot be the basis for entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 unless such erroneous findings do not give rise to substantial question of law.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed, "It is settled law that unless the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner, are not shown to be perverse, the same are not required to be interfered with in the appeal. Any erroneous finding or any error of law cannot be the basis for entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 unless such erroneous findings do not give rise to substantial question of law."
Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Accept Claim For Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay Of 17 Years
Case Title: Smt. Parwati Devi W/O Late Shri Mool Singh V.. Director (G) and Nodal Officer (PG)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 69
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed refused to accept petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand and Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, ruled, "We are of the considered opinion that the contentions put forward by the counsel for the petitioners, do not carry any merit, as the subsequent representations were made after a decade. Thus, this Court is not able to accept the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court."
Case Title: Satya Narayan and Others v. The H.D.F.C. Irgo General Insurance Company Limited and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 70
The question whether interest on compensation for motor accident claims exigible to tax and resultantly, is insurance company required to deduct tax at source while making such payment to the claimants has been referred to the larger bench by the division bench of Rajasthan High Court.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Uma Shanker Vyas, ordered,
"Under the circumstances reference may be made to the Larger Bench on following question:- 'Whether the interest payable on motor accident claim compensation is exigible to tax and resultantly is the insurance company required to deduct tax at source while making such payment to the claimants?"
The court observed, "In view of this position and also considering the importance of the issue as also the fact that the issue is a recurring one arising in large number of motor accident claim cases, it is desirable that there is an authoritative pronouncement on this question by Larger Bench."
Case Title: Soniya Burdak v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 71
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that no person has a vested right to be posted at a particular place. The court further observed that accepting a request for inter-district transfer of a recruit can lead to chain reaction and at times considerable administrative difficulties.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, ordered,
"The question of appointment or absorption in particular district, division or zone at the time of recruitment is essentially for the convenience of the selected candidate but this always is subject to administrative exigencies. No person has a vested right to be posted at a particular place. The selections and recruitments must attain finality."
The development ensued in a writ appeal filed by a PTI Grade-III recruit, seeking posting at Alwar instead of Jhunjhunu.
Case Title: M/S Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd. v.. The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 72
The Rajasthan High Court has held that officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) are not a competent authority to issue show cause notice and adjudicate the same as "proper officer" under Section 28 and 124 the Customs Act, 1962.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain, rued,
"DRI officer is not Competent Authority to issue show cause notice and adjudicate the same as "proper officer". The Act, the notification relied upon do not define and bring the DRI officers within four corners of "proper officers" having functions and powers to act under Section 28 of the Act of 1962 "
The court observed that the entire proceedings in the present case, initiated by officers of DRI in as much as by issuance of show cause notice under Section 28/124 of the Customs Act lacks jurisdiction and are without any authority of law because the present show cause notice is not issued by custom officer but by DRI officer who has not been assigned specific function/power under Section 6 to issue show cause notice U/S 28 of the Act of 1962.
Case Title: Ankit Sharma and Others v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 73
In a significant development, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has quashed the preliminary exam results of RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Examination 2021 conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).
The court directed RPSC to revise the result of the preliminary examination and to prepare a fresh list of candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination accordingly.
The preliminary examination was conducted on 27.10.2021 and the final answer key was issued on 22.11.2021.
Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal, observed,
"The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions are partly allowed in the above mentioned terms. The final answer key dated 22.11.2021 is quashed to the extent as stated hereinabove. Resultantly, the result dated 19.11.2021 stands quashed. The RPSC is directed to revise the result of the preliminary examination and to prepare a fresh list of candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination accordingly."
Case Title: Tasleem Ahmed Khan v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 74
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has refused to grant interim stay in a plea seeking complete ban on exhibition of KGF-2 movie and its Teaser.
The movie is set to release on 14th April 2022.
The development ensued in an appeal filed by one Tasleem Ahmed Khan against an order dated 31.01.2021 passed by the Single Judge, whereby while issuing notice in the writ petition against the movie, interim stay was refused.
The appellant is primarily aggrieved by certain scenes showing the actOthers smoking cigarettes. It is contended that the same is not permissible as per the rules and regulations framed by the Government of India.
Case Title: Rajkamal Basitha v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 75
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the District Judge Recruitment process.
In this matter, all the petitioners herein failed to make a mark in the preliminary examination. They were not shortlisted and did not qualify for the main examination.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled,
"All in all we find that the exercise undertaken by the specially constituted committee which culminated into a well-reasoned report touching threadbare on each and every disputed question, and which report was accepted by the examination committee, calls for no interference."
Case Title: Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Ankit Sharma and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 76
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court stayed the single judge bench order which quashed the preliminary exam results of RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Examination 2021 conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).
The court ordered that it would be open for RPSC to conduct the written main examination on the rescheduled date.
The court refused to go into the questions threadbare and observed that it has prima facie belief that the learned Judge had exceeded the scope of writ jurisdiction in the present case. The court observed that no legal or factual malafides were demonstrated nor procedural illegality was established and in some cases there still exists a grey area, which inturn is not sufficient to overturn an expert's body's decision.
Case Title: Rakesh Garg V. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 77
A Bench of Rajasthan High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, held that since the primary intention of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was the resolution of disputed taxes, the courts must adopt an interpretation that furthers this intention and not restrict its scope. Also, the court ruled that a clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), being declaratory in nature, cannot introduce a cut off date for its applicability.
Proceedings for penalty under the Act were initiated against the Assessee for failing to file an audit report under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty on the Assessee, an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) was filed which was dismissed by it. The Assessee thereby filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) along with an application for condonation of delay.In the meantime, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was passed by the Parliament, with effect from 17th March, 2020, for resolution of disputed tax.
Case Title: Radhakrishan Meena v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 78
In a case pertaining to rape on account of false promise to marriage, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that married educated women, depending upon the facts of each case, is supposed to be well aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man prior to solemnizing of the marriage.
The court opined that the consent of a woman under Section 375 of IPC can be held vitiated only on the ground of misconception of fact where such misconception was the basis of her surrender for establishing physical relationship. The court further opined that a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his words at the time of giving it, added the court.
Justice Farjand Ali, observed,
"When a woman is married and educated, then, depending on facts of each case, she is supposed to be well aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man prior to solemnizing of the marriage. In the event of a consent obtained by fraud, inducement is a necessary ingredient. There must be some material on record to hold prima facie that the girl was induced by the accused to such an extent that she was in agreement to have sexual intercourse with him"
Case Title: Union Of India and Another v. Harendra Gawaria
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 79
Recently, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur dealt with the question of whether the candidature of the respondent can be rejected by the Department of Railways on the ground of human error/bonafide mistake alone, because the date of the Postal Order was wrongly mentioned by him in the application, despite the fact that Postal Order was issued within the period of limitation.
In the present matter, the North Western Railway (NWR) Recruitment Cell issued an advertisement on 16.12.2010 by which the applications for recruitment on several posts of Group 'D'. were invited. The respondent submitted an application under the category of Other Backward Class. He qualified in the written examination, appeared in the physical eligibility test and qualified the medical test. Finally, the respondent was found fit, but subsequently, his candidature was rejected on 29.07.2013 by NWR for the reason that the Postal Order submitted by him was not within limitation.
Case Title: Suresh v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 80
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has issued guidelines for Test Identification Parade (TIP) in POCSO Cases.
The court ruled that special Judges of POCSO Act cases and all the District and Sessions Judges of the State shall ensure the immediate implementation of this order amongst all the judicial officers and all courts in their respective jurisdiction, which are conducting the trial of POCSO Cases
Justice Farjand Ali, while issuing the guidelines for TIP, rejected the bail application of the accused and ordered,
"This order shall be conveyed by the Registry of this Court to all learned special Judges of POCSO Act cases and all the District and Sessions Judges of the State, who shall ensure the immediate implementation of this order amongst all the judicial officers and all courts in their respective jurisdiction, which are conducting the trial of POCSO Cases."
Case Title: Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) v. The State Of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 81
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered to keep under its supervisory control the ongoing investigation by State's Special Operation Group (SOG) in the REET-2021 examination paper leak case.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,
"Investigation must not be fair but must also appear to be fully fair and free from any pulls or pressures. As of now, we do not see any reason to disturb the ongoing investigation in the hands of SOG. However we would keep the supervisory control of this ongoing investigation. This would enable us to observe closely the further progress of investigation and consider the option of forming a special investigating team if at any stage we find that the investigation is not progressing satisfactorily."
The development ensued in a public interest litigation filed by Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) for transferring the investigation of the matter to CBI.
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."
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."
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 and 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 and 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".
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."
Case Title: Vinod Sharma v. Smt. Shanti Devi and Others
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 dehOthers the provisions of the Act of 2007; beyond the scope of Rules of 2010 and also out of the powers of the Tribunal."
Provisional Attachment under CGST Act Ceases After Expiry Of One Year: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s B.r. Construction Company V. 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.
Case Title: Gajendra Purbia and Another 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."
Case Title: Sawai Singh Sodha and Another 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."
YouTube Is A Private Entity, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Dharmender Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Others
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."
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."
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.
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"
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 operatOthers 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-operatOthers, 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."
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."
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."
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."
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.
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 and 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."
Case Title: Sita Devi Educational Society, Bhilwara and Another 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.
Case Title: Rajasthan Housing Board through Dy. Housing Commissioner and 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."
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 and 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.
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."
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. "
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."
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. V.. Saif Ali Khan and Others)."
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."
Case Title: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director and Others 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."
Case Title: Nand Kishore and Another 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."
Case Title: Ratan Devi and Another 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."
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.
Case Title: Sohan Singh Rao v. 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 V.. 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.
Non-Availability Of Form GST ITC-02A On GSTN Portal: Rajasthan High Court Allows ITC In GSTR-3B
Case Title: Pacific Industries Ltd. V. 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.
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.
Case Title: Pratap Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 115
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to hear a public interest litigation against alleged illegal religious conversions and erection of unauthorized religious structures in the Ganganagr city, stating that it cannot decide disputed questions of facts in writ jurisdiction.
The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani however granted liberty to the Petitioners to raise their grievance before the competent authorities. It said,
" It is expected that such representation shall be considered objectively and decided as per law by a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of submission thereof."
Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail Granted To Mastermind Of Psychotropic Drugs Case- Anand Singh
Case Title: Suo Moto, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench v. Anand Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 116
The Rajasthan High Court recently cancelled the bail granted to the mastermind of psychotropic drugs case Anand Singh. The court also dismissed the bail applications of other three accused, namely, Anil Chaukdiwal, Deepak Chaukdiwal and Bhagwan Sain.
Justice Pankaj Bhandari, while allowing the suo moto bail cancellation application. observed,
"The involvement of accused respondent - Anand Singh is writ large from the very fact that relevant photos and WhatsApp chats were found in the mobile phone of respondent accused-Anand Singh, which clearly show that he was receiving order online for these psychotropic substance and same were exported to USA. Further, from the chargesheet, it is also revealed that Anand Singh was the mastermind, who was running the Drug Syndicate."
The court opined that Anand Singh's presence is shown during the search of premises in Khatipura from where recovery of contraband of commercial quantity was made. The court observed that there is also evidence that payments for the psychotropic substance were received in the account of Anand Singh. The court also observed that he accepted in his statement that he was receiving the payment of these drugs in cash or in his account. The court directed that he should be taken in custody forthwith.
Case Title: Laxman v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 117
The Rajasthan High Court has held given the "unequal bargaining power" between an employer and its workmen under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the settlement arrived at between them must be sent to the State Government, Labour Commissioner and the conciliation officer concerned for scrutiny.
It further observed that in absence of compliance of this condition, the settlement cannot be said to be binding on the parties in terms of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice Arun Bhansali, while allowing the petition, observed,
"The provisions are not without reason, inasmuch as on account of unequal bargaining power between the workmen and the management, in case a mutual settlement is arrived at the same becomes binding under the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the Act and, therefore, to ensure that the agreement arrived at is examined by the authority i.e. the Labour Commissioner and the conciliation officer, the same is required to be sent to them and entered in the register of settlement maintained by the conciliation officer."
Case Title: State, Through PP v. Atmaram & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 118
The Rajasthan High Court has commuted death penalty of four convicts accused of killing four persons and a minor over a land dispute.
The court ordered that the capital punishment awarded to the accused appellants by the trial court is commuted to life imprisonment, which shall enure till the natural life of the accused appellants without any possibility of permanent parole/premature release.
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while partly allowing the appeal, observed,
"However, the conduct of the accused, who attacked the entire family of Mr. Moman Ram with clear intention of eliminating them owing to the long-standing land dispute requires appropriate directions on the aspect of sentence of imprisonment. If the accused are permitted to roam at large without suffering the "imprisonment for life" in its literal meaning, they would in all likelihood eliminate the remaining family members as well if set at liberty. Hence, the capital punishment awarded to the accused appellants by the trial court is commuted to life imprisonment, which shall enure till the natural life of the accused appellants without any possibility of permanent parole/premature release."
Case Title: Anshul Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 119
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur recently allowed the plea filed by the petitioner claiming his eligibility in the category of Persons with Disability (PwD), as per the result of NEET UG-2021 examination and participation in the counselling, for the purpose of admission.
The court opined that the present case is a classic example of non application of mind by the Authorities, who deal with such an important issue of granting disability certificates. The belief of the court is forfeited from the fact that direction which was given by this court for medical examination of the petitioner for the second time also, resulted into issuing the certificate without adhering to the norms, which have been prescribed for considering the eligibility of a candidate, added the court.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, observed,
"Since, this Court intends to allow the writ petition, the petitioner will now be entitled to participate in the Mop-up round of counselling or any subsequent counselling, to be conducted by the respondents and his result will be accordingly declared by the Authorities and will be granted admission if falls in merit."
Rajasthan HC Dismisses PIL Against Solar Plant With 50k Cost; Quotes PM Modi, Obama, Etc.
Case Title: Jal Grahan Vikas Sanstha, Riwadi, District Jaisalmer Through Its President Mathar Khan v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 120
The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed public interest litigations opposing the allotment of the land made to the respondent-company for establishing the solar power plant in Riwadi.
The court noted quotes of world leaders, scientists and environmentalists on the aspects of climate change and its impact which, by use of renewable energy, can help in reversing the process of global warming which has started having a serious adverse impact on the world at large.
In this regard, the division bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani quoted Hon'ble Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi,
"Solar Energy is 'Sure', 'Pure' and "Secure'."
"India plans to produce 450 GWS of power through solar energy and other renewable energy sources by 2030"
Case Title: Mohammed Amin Through His Son:Zulkafil Amin Ansari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 121
The Rajasthan High Court has recently granted parole to an 80 years old accused convicted under TADA who remained in custody for more than 27 years.
The petitioner had preferred a writ petition (parole) for grant of emergency parole on the ground of his medical condition. It was contended that he was suffering from "DM, CAD (Coronary Artery Disease), BPH (Benign Prosthetic Hyperplasia)".
Justice Birendra Kumar and Justice Pankaj Bhandari, observed,
"Consequently, the writ petition (parole) stands allowed. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on parole for à period of 30 days, on furnishing of his personal bonds of RS.50,000/- with one surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the Jail Authorities with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself before the Jail Authority on expiry of 30 days from the date of release and shall maintain peace and tranquility during parole period."
Case Title: Nand Lal Through His Wife Rekha v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 122
In a significant judgment, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur observed that denial to the convict-prisoner to perform conjugal relationship with his wife more particularly for the purpose of progeny would adversely affect the rights of his wife. In this regard, the court granted 15 days parole to the life convict.
The bench opined that Hindu philosophy also advocates the importance of pitra – rin, i.e. parental debt. Our lives are the consequence of the fact that ancestors have been carrying and forwarding the said pitra rin, it is because of this, life came to us and in order to maintain the continuity of life, we must pay off this debt, added the the court.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Farjand Ali, while allowing the petition, observed,
"As an upshot of the observations made herein above, we are of the considered view that though there is no express provision in the Rajasthan Prisoners Release On Parole Rules, 2021 for releasing the prisoner on parole on the ground of his wife to have progeny; yet considering the religious philosophies, cultural, sociological and humanitarian aspects, coupled with the fundamental right guaranted by the Constitution of India and while exercising extra ordinary power vested in it, this Court deem it just and proper to allow the instant writ petition."
Rajsathan High Court Dismisses Challenge To Civil Judge Exam Preliminary Merit List
Case Title: Kavita Bhargava v. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 123
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur dismissed a batch of writ petitions questioning the correctness and validity of the merit list prepared after Preliminary Examination in the matter of selection to the post of Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre.
Essentially, the challenge has been regarding correctness and validity of deletion of four questions, rejection of representation for deleting more questions on various grounds and some other common grounds to the process of selection.
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the petitions and upholding the Expert Committee's recommendations, ordered,
"Having dealt with all the issues as raised in these petitions and relying upon dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions cited hereinabove which restrict the scope of judicial review and interference is warranted only in exceptional cases of the nature as stated and restated in various judicial pronouncements, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the body of experts as it was acted upon by the respondents. We have carefully examined the original records which contained deliberations of subject experts and discussions, as also the conclusion arrived at by the experts of the subjects in the Expert Committee.".
Case Title: Akheraj v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 124
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that the right to seek default/statutory bail accrues to the accused in the nature of an indefeasible right, only if such remedy by preferring an appropriate application has been availed of within the prescribed window from the date of expiry of total period of detention of accused person(s) under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., until filing of the charge-sheet.
The Court also held that if an additional or new offence(s) are found to be made out by the investigating authority, against an accused, then the computation of the period, as laid down under Section 167 Cr.P.C. would be done afresh.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed,
"This Court hereby observes that the right to seek default/statutory bail accrues to the accused in the nature of an indefeasible right, only if such remedy by preferring an appropriate application has been availed of within the prescribed window from the date of expiry of total period of detention of accused person(s) under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., until filing of the charge-sheet."
Case Title: Jagdish Prasad Meena v. The State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 125
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that in the absence of any statutory prohibitions, establishment of Toll Plaza could not be faulted only on the ground that the Toll Plaza is in the vicinity of adjoining villages and dhanis. In the absence of any statutory provisions, only on that ground, the location of Toll Plaza cannot be said to be illegal, added the court.
The court observed that the Toll Plaza, in the present case, is beyond the prohibited distance under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan State Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collections) Rules, 2015 and there being no violation of any statutory provisions governed, the establishment of Toll Plaza cannot be said to be in violation of law only on the ground of violation of the certain guidelines which are principle based..
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while dismissing the petition, observed,
"We therefore come to the conclusion that, on facts, compliance of IRC guidelines was not mandatory, therefore, the present case where the location of Toll Plaza is governed by statutory provisions contained in the statutory Rules of 2015 framed in exercise of statutory powers under the Act of 2014 will hold the field and in the absence of there being statutory provisions under the law regulating location of Toll Plaza, there being no condition incorporated either in the advertisement or in the terms and conditions of eligibility for erection of Toll Plaza or in the concession agreement between government and the concessionaire, establishment of Toll Plaza cannot be said to be illegal or opposed to law."
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."
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."
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.
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".
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."
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."
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."
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".
Case Title: Girdhari Singh Through His Father Kishor Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 134
The Rajasthan High Court has asked the State's Home Secretary to issue pertinent instructions to the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of jails across the State to ensure that the emergent parole applications submitted by the convicts are not kept pending and are decided immediately on receipt thereof.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani observed,
"The Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan shall issue pertinent instructions to the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of jails across the State of Rajasthan to ensure that the emergent parole applications submitted by the convicts are not kept pending and are decided immediately on receipt thereof in terms of the Rule 23 of the Rules of 2021."
Case Title: Haider Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 135
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to Union government to conduct the Census in scheduled timeline, without any further delay and also to declare "wherever it may consider it necessary or desirable to do so" in the Section 3 of the Census Act, 1948 as ultra vires.
Section 3 of Census Act, 1948 states that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention of taking a Census in the whole or any part of the territories to which this Act extends, whenever it may consider it necessary or desirable so to do and thereupon the Census shall be taken.
Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Exempt Assessee From Personal Appearance Under GST
Case Title: Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 136
The Rajasthan High Court consisting of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain has refused to exempt the assessee from personal appearance under Section 70 of the CGST Act.
The petitioner/assessee sought the direction of exemption from personal appearance pursuant to summons issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 issued by Respondent/department.
The assessee has sought its representation through an authorised representative is required to be duly considered by the respondents.
The assessee submitted that unless it is absolutely imperative, it is not necessary that in all cases, the petitioner should be insisted for personal appearance and he may be allowed to appear through representative also replying to various queries.
Rajasthan High Court Grants 15 Days' Temporary Bail To Convict To Perform Daughter's Kanyadan
Case Title: Ratna v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 137
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has granted temporary bail for 15 days to a man to perform 'Kanyadan' & other ceremonies in his daughter's marriage.
Notably, the present application for grant of temporary bail has been filed on the ground that the appellant's daughter is getting married on 28.04.2022 and the presence of the appellant is necessary to perform 'Kanyadan' and other ceremonies in the marriage.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, ruled,
"Taking into consideration the ground, on which the temporary bail is sought, we are inclined to allow the application to the extent that the appellant shall be released on temporary bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The appellant shall be released on temporary bail for a period of 15 days from the date of release."
Case Title: Kalu Ram Jangid v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 138
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the petitioner is a married brother of the deceased government servant, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be a dependant and to be entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.
Justice Rekha Borana, while dismissing the writ petition, opined,
"Admittedly, the petitioner is married and therefore, in terms of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner cannot be held to be a dependant and to be entitled for compassionate appointment. In view of the specific provisions of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 01.01.2019."
Case Title: M/s.Mangalam Arts through its partner Sh.Rajendra Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 139
The Rajasthan High Court observed that merely depositing an amount unilaterally by the petitioner-firm, in absence of any allotment letter, would not create any right to claim allotment of land in its favour.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, while dismissing the writ petition, ruled,
"This Court finds that merely by depositing amount unilaterally by the petitioner-firm, in absence of any allotment letter, would not create any right to claim allotment in its favour."
The court observed that the allotment of industrial plots on "first come first serve" basis is not approved in the interest of the respondent-Corporation and as such, the decision cannot be termed arbitrary.
Power Of Revision At The State Of Framing Of Charges Is Very Limited: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Sudhir Bordiya v. State, Through Pp
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 140
The Rajasthan High Court observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of interference of the High Court, as a revisional Court is very limited, so much so that the Court must be concerned only with the question whether there is any suspicion against the accused, and not with the proof of the allegation(s).
The court opined that if a strong suspicion exists in the mind of the court at the stage concerned, then the same is sufficient for the court to proceed with the framing of the charge against the accused person(s). And if a prayer for discharge has been made before a revisional court, then the same may only be allowed if the court finds that the materials on record are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial, added the court.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while dismissing the writ petition and refusing to interfere with the decision of trial court, ruled,
"This Court, therefore, finds that the judicial precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is clear, and that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of interference of the Hon'ble High Court, as a revisional Court is very limited, so much so that the Court must be concerned only with the question whether there is any suspicion against the accused, and not with the proof of the allegation(s). And, as an exception to this, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335"
Coins Worth ₹11 Crore Missing From SBI Branch: Rajasthan High Court Transfers Investigation To CBI
Case Title: State Bank Of India v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 141
In a case of 'missing' coins worth Rs. 11 crore from the Mehandipur Balaji branch of State Bank of India (SBI), the Central Bureau has reportedly filed an FIR. The FIR was filed pursuant to the order issued by the Rajasthan High Court whereby, on March 4, 2022, the court had transferred the investigation of the matter to the agency.
As per the reports, an FIR filed by the bank in August 2021 reported a discrepancy in the total value of coins deposited in the bank, and those that were found to be there in an audit conducted by the bank. It was further stated in the FIR that the vendor told the bank that while the audit was underway, one of his employees, who was involved in counting of coins, allegedly had his life threatened by a group of 10-15 armed men.
Notably, the State Bank of India, by way of a criminal writ petition, had approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking direction to the CBI to take over the investigation of the FIR filed in August last year at Police Station Todabhim. It also sought direction to the respondents to pursue the FIR for offence of threat given to the vendor.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 142
The Rajasthan High Court observed that medical evidence cannot be doubted, that too, at the stage of framing of charges, where as per the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court, the possibility of acquittal of the accused person are not to be taken into consideration, rather it is to be seen whether prima facie case is made out or not.
The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order passed by trial court, framing charges against the present accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 308, 447, 427, 341, 323 & 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, ruled,
"Such medical evidence cannot be doubted, that too, at the stage of framing of charges, where as per the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the possibility of acquittal of the accused person are not to be taken into consideration, rather it is to be seen whether prima facie case is made out or not; the impugned order passed by the learned trial court clearly reveals that the said proposition, amongst others, has been kept into consideration by the learned trial court, and rightly so."
Case Title: Prahlad v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 143
The Rajasthan High Court observed that merely because the courts were closed for Holi Holidays, the prosecution cannot get the benefit of filing the charge-sheet after expiry of the period of 60 days or the stipulated period of time mandated by law.
The court noted that it is a settled proposition of law that if the contraband recovered is below commercial quantity, the charge-sheet is required to be filed within a period of 60 days and the period of 60 days, in no circumstance, can get enlarged.
Essentially, the petitioner was arrested on 17.01.2022 and the 60 days' period came to an end on 19.03.2022 whereas the charge-sheet was filed on 21.03.2022.
Case Title: Raman v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 144
The Rajasthan High Court observed that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case of murder, where ocular testimony is convincing, there is no requirement for the prosecution to seek corroboration in the form of motive and recovery.
In the present matter, an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking suspension of sentence awarded by the trial court, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment under Sections 302 (Murder) and 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt) IPC. The appellant urged that he has strong case for assailing the impugned judgment and hence, he deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while dismissing the petition as it being devoid of merit,
"We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We may state that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case of murder, where ocular testimony is convincing, there is no requirement for the prosecution to seek corroboration in the form of motive and recovery."
Rajasthan High Court Directs GST Dept. To Reimburse The Pre Deposit In View Of CIRP Of Binani Cement
Case Title: M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 145
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta has directed the GST department to reimburse amounts deposited by Binani Cement as a mandatory statutory obligation to the Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement.
The petitioner, UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd., has taken over Binani Cement. The petitioner has filed a revision petition assailing the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, rejecting the applications for a refund of the mandatory statutory obligation pre-deposit with interest made with appeals filed before the Tax Board.
The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department issued VAT assessment orders fixing the liability of Binani Cement Limited for different periods ranging from 2005-06 to 2015-16 and also imposed upon it additional tax and interest. These orders were carried by Binani Cement Limited in an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Jodhpur, who dismissed it by separate orders. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the assessing authority and the appellate authority, Binani Cement Limited preferred appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer.
Case Title: Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Versus UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 146
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has restrained the GST department from recovering GST on royalty paid on account of the excavation of sand for brick.
The petitioner/assessee has filed the writ petition challenging the demand GST on the royalty paid on account of excavation of sand for brick.
The petitioner has submitted that, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cement Ltd. Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the royalty is separate and distinct from the land revenue and it is not related to the land as a unit. As such, no tax is to be paid upon the royalty.
Case Title: Neeraj Jain v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 147
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the action of the State Government in just directing the Special Public Prosecutor to appear in the case after taking the files from Additional Public Prosecutor, does not appear to be just, proper and correct. More particularly, when the order of appointment of Additional Public Prosecutor has not been revoked, added the court.
The court noted that the State Government after having taken into consideration the special circumstances of the present case, had appointed Shri Shreejee Bhavsar to appear as Special Public Prosecutor in the case vide order dated 28.03.2018. The court added that while this order is still in force, a direction has been issued to transfer the files of this case to Shri Prem Singh Panwar who is regularly appointed Additional Public Prosecutor in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, while allowing the writ petition, observed,
"The action of the State Government in just directing the Special Public Prosecutor to appear in the case after taking the files from Shri Shreejee Bhavsar, does not appear to be just, proper and correct. More particularly, when the order of appointment of Shri Shreejee Bhavsar dated 28.03.2018 has not been revoked."
Case Title: Manisha Khator v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 148
The Rajasthan High Court disposed of a plea filed by a postgraduate woman raising grievance that she wants to pursue her studies, whereas she is being harassed by the police as her father has lodged a missing person report.
Being a resident of Ganganagar, the petitioner is presently residing as a paying guest at Jodhpur and wants to continue her study. In this regard, she prayed for adequate police protection from her parents.
The court opined that there is no specific instance or imminent threat to the petitioner and if the petitioner is having any apprehension or threat perception about her life and liberty from her parents, she may move appropriate representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (East) indicating her concern
Justice Dinesh Mehta, while disposing of the criminal miscellaneous petition, observed,
"Though no specific instance or imminent threat has been pleaded but considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is having any apprehension or threat perception about her life and liberty from her parents, she may move appropriate representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (East) indicating her concern."
Case Title: Doli Mandir Sri Mahadev Ji (Pahadeshwar Mahadev), Ludrada Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer Through Its Devotee Shri Vikram Singh v. District Collector, Barmer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 149
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Sub Division Officer concerned in the area to look into a representation to be made before it against alleged encroachment, unauthorized constructions demolition of structures at the Pahadeshwar Mahadev Temple in Barmer district.
The division bench comprising Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Saneep Mehta observed that the petitioner has been climbing up the wrong tree for ventilating his grievances by filing the representations to the Chief Minister and the Principal Secretary, Devasthan Department and thereby not addressing a dedicated representation to the Sub Division Officer (SDO) concerned.
The petitioner Vikram Singh claiming to be a devotee of Doli Mandir Sri Mahadev Ji (Pahadeshwar Mahadev) Ludrada, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer approached the court seeking direction to Datnarayan Giri Baba-respondent No.4 restraining him to raise any new construction in the temple premises and further restraining him to remove, demolish, destroy any existing construction of the temple premises including the historical entrance pole of the temple.
Case Title: Vishal Kochar v. Smt. Pulkit Sahni & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 150
The Rajasthan High Court observed that an order of interim maintenance passed under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C by any Family Court or Magistrate, during the pendency of the proceeding, remains effective up to the final order only and does not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties in finality.
In this regard, the court opined that the impugned order dated 27.01.2021, regarding interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is an interlocutory order, hence revision petitions being not maintainable, either under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
The court considered the question whether the order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order and consequently, whether criminal revision petition is maintainable against that order or not.
Justice Uma Shanker Vyas, ordered:
" An order of interim maintenance passed under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C by any Family Court or Magistrate, during the pendency of the proceeding, remains effective up to the final order only and does not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties in finality.
Case Title: Sunita Meena v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through its Registrar General & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 151
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a widow's challenge to the validity of the category-wise merit list prepared after preliminary examinations for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate in the Rajasthan Judicial Services.
The Petitioner was aggrieved over her non-inclusion by giving benefit of horizontal reservation as widow in ST category.
" Challenge to the reservation policy and prescription as provided under the advertisement cannot be permitted to be challenged at the instance of unsuccessful candidates after the candidate has been declared unsuccessful," division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain said while dismissing the petition as it being sans substratum.
Case Title: Sanjay Ghiya v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 152
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that Section 56 of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, inasmuch as it excludes Respondents' right to legal representation before the Appellate Tribunal or the Regulatory Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, is ultra vires.
Accordingly, it declared that the provision includes the word "Respondent", who would also be entitled to representation (like the applicant or appellant) to either appear in person or authorize one or more Chartered Accountants or Company Secretaries or Cost Accountants or Legal Practitioner or of its officer to present his or its case before the Appellate Tribunal or Regulatory Authority or the Adjudicating Officer, as the case may be.
The validity of Section 56 of the Act of 2016 was challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that it is hit by Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Section 56 gave right of legal representation only to the applicant/ appellant. However, no such right of representation has been given to the respondent against whom the proceedings have been initiated before the Appellate Tribunal or before the Regulatory Authority or the Adjudicating Officer.
Case Title: Anop Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 153
The Rajasthan High Court observed that Section 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 makes it abundantly clear that organising marriage is a sine qua non to constitute an offence under the Act. However, mere engagement of a child in any case does not amount to an offence under Section 11, added the court.
Section 11 of the Act provides punishment for promoting or permitting solemnisation of child marriages while Section 15 of the Act states that notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC), an offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
Justice Dinesh Mehta observed,
"A perusal of Section 11 of the Act of 2006, makes it abundantly clear that organising marriage is a sine qua non to constitute an offence under the Act of 2006. Engagement of a child in any case does not amount to an offence under Section 11 of the Act of 2006. Admittedly, on the fateful day of 25.02.2020, petitioner's son was getting engaged which cannot be confused with or construed to be a marriage, falling foul to the provisions of the Act of 2006."
Case Title: Sudarshan Purohit v. The Hon'ble High Court For Judicature Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 154
The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday dismissed a review petition challenging the answer key of Preliminary Examination for selection to the post of Rajasthan Civil Judge.
The review petition was filed against the order dated 08.04.2022, whereby the division bench had dismissed a batch of writ petitions questioning the correctness and validity of the merit list prepared after Preliminary Examination in the matter .
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the review petition as it being 'misconceived', observed,
"The argument of learned counsel for the review petitioner is utterly misconceived in law. This Court on the factual premise that upon objection received on the correctness of the model answer key of question no.A-66/B-49/C-58/D-39, the expert body had considered objection and it opined that the question was with regard to the date on which the Act was published and therefore with reference to the question, the date of publication was relevant not the date on which it was brought into force and effect in exercise of powers under Section 1(1) of the Act."
Case Title: Bharat Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 155
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of Dr. Anulya Morya as Vice Chancellor of Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University.
The petitioner argued that Dr. Morya does not possess statutorily prescribed experience of teaching the post graduate classes for a period of ten years, and therefore, has illegally usurped the public office of Vice Chancellor.
In this regard, the petitioner placed reliance on UGC regulations called the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010) Regulations 2010 as also the Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University, Jaipur (Amendment Ordinance), Ordinance 2018.
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, ruled,
"This petition, if we may say so, not only lacks proper pleadings but also on the face of it is frivolous. Therefore, we are not inclined to issue notice in this petition and dismiss the same with the cost of Rs.25,000/-."
Case Title: Prem Chand Deshantri v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 156
"It cannot be assumed that a litigant would keep waiting for the adjudication of his disputes, if the competent Forum or the Authority is not functioning," the Rajasthan High Court observed recently.
The remarks were made by Justice Rekha Borana while hearing an application filed by the Centre seeking dismissal of a petition relating to recruitment in Civil Service, on the ground of alternate remedy. The petition was filed before the High Court due to admitted vacancy in Central Administrative Tribunal at the time.
The Bench, while dismissing the application filed by the respondents, observed,
"Therefore, any litigant cannot be left remediless. It cannot be assumed that a litigant would keep waiting for the adjudication of his disputes, if the competent Forum or the Authority is not functioning. It cannot also be the intention of the legislation to make a litigant suffer because of the inaction or lacuna on the part of the system. The fact of the CAT not functioning at the relevant time being not disputed, the dismissal of the writ petition at this stage i.e. after four years of filing of the same and being entertained by this Court, would not be in the interest of justice now only on the ground of alternative remedy."
Case Title: Mahendra Yadav & Anr. v. Bhagwan Devi & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 157
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that if any litigation, with passage of time or due to prolonged life of the litigation has lost its merits, the parties should be advised not to pursue such lumber litigation unwarrantedly on merits, taking immense judicial time of courts for no good results.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, while dismissing the first appeal as it being devoid of merits, observed,
"There is nothing wrong to have a legitimate expectation from the learned Members of the Bar to convince such type of litigants not to pursue the unwarranted litigation before any court of law. If any litigation, with passage of time or due to prolonged life of the litigation have lost its merits, the parties should be advised not to pursue such lumber litigation unwarrantedly on merits, taking immense judicial time of courts for no good results. Prestigious and valuable time of judicial courts should be utilized for deciding bonafide and legitimate disputes instead of deciding superfluous litigation like present one."
Case Title: Kumar Indu Bhushan v. Union Of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 158
The Rajasthan High Court recently affirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal that upheld compulsory retirement of an IPS officer and observed that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not require observation of principles of natural justice.
A division bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand and Justice Pankaj Bhandari observed:
"The order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor it attaches any stigma on an employee-petitioner. The subjective decision of the government in public interest arrived at after considering entire service record of the petitioner, where the principles of natural justice, are not required to be observed while passing the order of compulsory retirement because the order of compulsory retirement does not amount to a punishment."
Gold Smuggling Can't Be Treated As 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Azaz Khan v. N.I.A. through Special PP and other connected matters
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 159
The Rajasthan High Court observed that Customs Act is not included in Schedule-II of the UA(P)A and thus smuggling of gold and that too of a quantity which is bailable under the Customs Act cannot be treated as Terrorist act.
The court examined the question whether Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P)A, which was inserted in the year 2012, was meant to include the smuggling of gold in the category of 'other material'.
Notably, the single bench of this court in Mohammad Aslam v. Union of India & Ors had held that gold is a vulnerable material, smuggling of which can be done with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country and thus considered to be a 'terrorist act'.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while allowing the appeals and releasing the accused-appellant on bail, observed,
"Customs Act is not included in Schedule-II of the UA(P)A, thus smuggling of gold and that too of a quantity, which is bailable under the Customs Act cannot be treated as a Terrorist Act."
Case Title: Raju Singh v. Twinkle Kanwar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 160
The Rajasthan High Court observed that a family court had committed illegality in rejecting the divorce application of the parties for waiving cooling-off six months' period in the absence of any documentary evidence, especially when the parties have already stated on oath through affidavit that both of them are living separately since July, 2018.
Notably, a joint application was filed by the parties before the Family court for waving six months' cooling-off period as provided under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 on 26.04.2022, however, the Family court rejected the same while observing that the parties have failed to produce documents to prove the fact that both of them are living separately since July, 2018.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order passed by the Family Court, observed,
"In the present case, when the parties have already stated on oath through affidavit that both of them are living separately since July, 2018, the court below has committed illegality in rejecting the application of the parties for waiving cooling-off six months' period in the absence of any documentary evidence."
Case Title: Adarsh Shiksha Parishad Samiti & Anr v. Gajanand Sharma & Ors. with other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 161
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that prior approval of the Director of Education is not necessary before taking disciplinary action against an employee of Unaided Recognized Educational Institutions.
In this regard, reliance was placed on the High Court's judgment in Central Academy Society Vs. Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutional Tribunal [2010(3) WLC 21] as well as the decision of Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka [2002 (8) SCC 481].
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while allowing the appeal, observed,
"Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we see no reason to take a different view as the controversy involved in this appeal has already been put to rest by the Constitutional Bench of 11 Judges of the Hon'ble Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and the three Judges Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Central Academy Society (supra), that prior approval of the Director of Education is not necessary before taking disciplinary action against the employee of the Unaided Recognized Educational Institution."
Case Title: State Of Rajasthan & Anr. v. M/s. Godhara Construction Company
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 162
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the provision of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings contained under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while dismissing an appeal preferred by the State government observed,
"In view of the discussions made above, this Court of the opinion that the application under Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 filed by the appellant for setting aside the arbitral award dated 29.07.2000 was beyond the mandatory period of limitation permitted under the Act of 1996. Hence, the same could not have been entertained by taking the recourse of the provisions of the Limitation Act."
The court observed that the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 empowers the court if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making application within the said period of three months to further extend the period and filing of the application for setting aside the arbitral award by 30 days but not thereafter.
Case Title: Mumtaz Mohd. V District Collector Pali and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 163
The Rajasthan High Court recently asked the Tahsildar to hear the poultry farmer before he decides to ask him to shift his farm elsewhere.
The observation came from Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur:
"A bare perusal of the Annex. 5 dated 09.09.2016 shows that the petitioner has not been extended any opportunity of hearing before passing the notice impugned. This Court feels that since the notice impugned 09.09.2016 having evil consequences, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioner."
In the present matter, the petitioner was an owner of a poultry farm who moved the court challenging the notice issued by Tehsildar for shifting of the poultry farm without extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Petitioner argued that he has complied with all the eligibility and requisite qualifications and a 'No objection certificate' for running the poultry farm.
Case Title: State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P v. Komal Lodha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 164
The Rajasthan High Court recently commuted death sentence awarded to a man convicted for the offence of sodomy, rape and murder of a 7-year old girl child, while observing that it appeared to be a case of wrong conviction whereby the actual offenders had, with the help of the Police, shifted the crime on the present convict.
The case had travelled up to the Supreme Court which did not upset the conviction and had remitted the matter back to the High Court only to decide the question of sentence upon consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
While dealing with this criminal death reference, a division bench of Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Anoop Kumar Dhand observed,
" It appears that two persons committed the horrendous act of rape and sodomy with a seven ones year old girl and murdered the girl and thereafter, with the help of the police shifted the crime to the present appellant...We are alive of the fact that the conviction of the accused has been upheld by the Apex Court...Since we have been directed to confine our judgment only on the question of sentence for offence under Section 302 IPC, we with heavy heart and with hope that justice would be done to the accused, who has been sentenced to imprisonment till death for crime committed by two other persons, commute sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment."
Case Title: Simorna v. State of Rajasthan through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 165
The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to a woman, accused in a murder case, who has been incarcerated since June 2015, along with her minor daughter.
While observing that the trial is still pending and on being informed that the same is held up on account of delay caused by witnesses, Justice Manoj Kumar Garg allowed her second bail application.
Essentially, the lady has been in judicial custody since June 2, 2015 in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Kuri Bhagtasni, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302 (Murder), 120-B (Criminal conspiracy) and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of the IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.
Notably, her first bail application was dismissed on 15.12.2016 by the court.
"Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the facts that the accused-petitioner is a lady and she is inside jail since 02.06.2015 along with her minor daughter aged about three years and the trial of the case is yet pending, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C," the Court said.
Case Title: M/s Vivek Pharmachem (India) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 166
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that Section 18A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 requires disclosure of name of manufacturer also and not only of the stockists and thus, he is entitled to receive one portion sample of seized drugs in terms of Section 23(4) of the Act.
Section 18A of the Act deals with the disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, etc. It states, "Every person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall, if so required, disclose to the Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic.".
Section 23(4) r/e 23(3) provides that where an Inspector takes a sample of a drug for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall divide the sample into four portions and restore one portion of it to the person from whom he takes it, and shall retain the remainder.
Case Title: Om Prakash Kumawat v. Hero Housing Finance Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 167
The High Court of Rajasthan has held that proceedings under the A&C Act and SARFAESI Act can be resorted to simultaneously.
The Single Bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal has held that the existence of an arbitration clause and filing of an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act is not a bar to the institution of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
The writ petitioner challenged that order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on the ground that the loan agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause and the respondent having filed an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act, therefore, the remedy under SARFAESI Act cannot be resorted to and the CMM erred in entertaining the application.
Case Title: Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s. Punusumi India Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 168
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur has refused to grant the priority of the government dues over the debts due to secured creditors.
The petitioner/department has pleaded that the company M/s. Punsumi India Ltd. is under liquidation and the Officer Liquidator (OL) had invited claims with regard to outstanding dues against the company. The department had sent its claim via communication and the OL communicated that the claim was not in the prescribed format and the same was time barred and delay was to be condoned by the High Court.
The department submitted its claim before the OL with the documentary evidence and affidavit, and the OL called for certain information from the department, which was responded to by them.
Case Title: Chandra Bhal Singh v. State Of Raj And Ors and connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 169
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has recently directed the State to ensure compliance of law and prevent illegal mining, encroachments etc. in the Forests, Wild Life Sanctuaries, Forest Reserves, Tiger Reserves, etc. situated at Ranthambore, Sariska, Nahargarh, Jhalana and other forest reserves.
In a batch of writ petitions concerning the issue, the court noted that it is a very sorry state of affairs that the concerned authorities have not carried out their duties for the reasons best known to them, in spite of notification issued under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and other relevant Legislations.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 170
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the attempt of a complainant to get the civil dispute resolved by resorting to invoking jurisdiction of a criminal court amounts to abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, the court noted that the real dispute between the parties is prima facie of civil nature which cannot be adjudicated by a criminal court.
Justice Birendra Kumar, while allowing the petition filed by the accused and quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising-therein, observed, "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that real dispute between the parties is of civil nature which cannot be adjudicated by a criminal court, hence the attempt of the complainant to get the civil dispute resolved by resorting to invoking jurisdiction of a criminal court amounts to abuse of the process of the Court."
Case Title: Hemraj v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 171
The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to a murder accused after hearing his counsel's arguments contending that no one can be arrested simply on the basis of assumption, presumption and perception.
The appellant's counsel submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, however no circumstances are available except hearsay evidence. Placing reliance on Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, the appellant's counsel submitted that oral evidence of any incident must be direct in nature. She added that if it relates to a fact which could be seen, then it must be the evidence of that person who says that he saw the incident.
Case Title: Mangal Das through LRS v. Amar Singh through LRS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 172
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the basic object of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 is to save the harassment of tenants from unscrupulous landlords. The court added that the said object may not be misconstrued to deprive the landlords of their bona fide properties for all times to come.
Justice Sudesh Bansal observed, "It may be noticed that the rent control legislation was entitled to strike a reasonable balance between the landlord and tenant. At one hand where the tenant requires adequate protection against his eviction at the hands of aggressive designed greedy landlord, at the same time rights of landlord also require protection to increase the rent reasonably and to evict tenant on the grounds permissible in law. The basic object of the Rent Control Act, 1950 is to save the harassment of tenant from unscrupulous landlords. The object of the Rent Control Act, 1950 may not be misconstrued to deprive the landlords of their bona fide properties for all times to come."
Case Title: Fula @ Fulchand v. State Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 173
On finding a contradiction between the eye-witness testimony and the medical evidence, the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC (Murder). Instead, it convicted the accused in Section 323 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt).
A Division Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vinod Kumar Bharwani relied on Dunga Ram v. the State of Rajasthan and Jugut Ram v. the State of Chhattisgarh, in which the facts were similar, and the offence of murder was altered to one of voluntarily causing hurt.
Under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellants preferred an instant appeal challenging a judgment convicting the accused for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
Case Title: Neha Mathur & Anr. v. Dr. Arvind Kishore with connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 174
The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday observed that merely the fact that the wife is earning would not dis-entitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband. The Court opined that the charge of desertion cannot become a ground so as to enable the husband to disqualify the wife from claiming the amount of monthly maintenance, in any manner whatsoever.
Essentially, the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 27.05.2010 at Bikaner; thereafter, the couple went to reside in the USA. Out of the said wedlock, Master Anay (son) was born on 21.05.2011. On account of the alleged disharmony in their matrimonial relationship, the wife left her matrimonial home at USA on 13.11.2013 and came back to India alongwith the son. Later, the wife filed an application against the husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the trial court on 30.08.2018, while awarding a monthly maintenance to the wife and son, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- (totalling Rs.70,000/-).
Case Title: Gourav Sharma & Anr. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 175
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions alleging that the scaling formula for the recruitment exam for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Range Officer Grade-I as has been applied by the respondents-Rajasthan Public Service Commission, is improper and thereby results in huge and undue variation in the marks awarded in different subjects
The petitioners also alleged that the same adversely affected the final merit to be drawn on the basis of marks scaled. Moreover, the petitioner sought directions to the respondents to declare the result on the basis of raw marks.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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."
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.
Case Title: Hemant Nahta v. The Honble Speaker, Rajasthan Assembly & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
The vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court today dismissed an application which sought interim stay on declaration of results of Rajya Sabha Elections till the disposal of writ petitions pertaining to disqualification of the six Rajasthan MLAs who originally were elected as Members of Bahujan Samaj Party and were later on considered as Members of the Indian National Congress.
Notably, the Rajya Sabha election is scheduled to take place tomorrow.
The order passed by the Speaker was challenged by Bahujan Samaj Party and Madan Dilawar, a sitting MLA of Bharatiya Janta Party and their petitions were disposed of by the Single Judge on 24.08.2020. The petitioner informed the court that the challenge against the single Judge's order has been pending before the Apex Court and no interim order has been passed by the Apex Court.
Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Uma Shankar Vyas, while dismissing the application, observed,
"In the present PIL filed by the petitioner, even notices have not been issued to the other side. It is also evident that during the pendency of the present PIL, elections to the Rajya Sabha were held and Members were elected to the Rajya Sabha. Petitioner at that time also did not press for any interim relief. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the present application for interim relief as the election process has already been commenced and election is scheduled to take place tomorrow."
Case Title: Geetanjali Medical College And Hospital v. The Union of India with other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has observed that Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) has jurisdiction to issue directions for stoppage of admissions but prima facie, it lacks the authority to issue cancellation of admission.
Essentially, a batch of writ petitions were filed by medical colleges and its students, challenging the recommendations made by MARB for withdrawal of letter of permission, cancellation of admission in undergraduate and postgraduate courses for the academic year 2021-22 in the petitioner-institutions.
On 28.04.2022, the court had passed an interim order protecting the admissions already granted to the students in various undergraduate or postgraduate courses in the petitioner institutions for the academic session 2021-22.
Case Title: Bhim Saini @ Bhimraj Saini v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
The Rajasthan High Court on Friday denied bail to two accused, including the girl's brother, in a case 'having a strong trait of honour killing'.
Essentially, the deceased-Azad and the accused petitioner-Bhim Saini's sister were in a relationship. As the girl's family was not pleased with the same, therefore, the couple eloped. They were later apprehended by the police and the girl was made to accompany the petitioner-side. The deceased filed a habeas corpus petition following which, the parties attempted to settle the matter through compromise and accordingly, the deceased withdrew the petition. In a close proximity of time, the boy went missing and after four days his dead body was found lying in a pond tied with the heavy iron material.
Justice Farjand Ali, while dismissing the bail application of the two accused, observed,
"Needless, to observe that every citizen of this country is abided and governed by rule of Law and one has to follow it as no one is above the Law, as in fact no one can. Every citizen is principally embodied to access their fundamental right and legal right peacefully and if it is being hindered by any one, the rule of law and the procedure established by law is there for its recourse, but no citizen is allowed to take the course of law in its own hands, strictly not."
Case Title: Raju @ Rajkumar Through His Brother Sh. Sharwarmal v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
The Rajasthan High Court has recently directed the State to release a convict, belonging to Below Poverty Line (B.P.L.) family, on parole of 7 days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and one sound and solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, the court waived the requirement of the petitioner's brother furnishing surety bond.
Essentially, the petitioner was granted parole of 7 days under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 on 29.09.2021 with the requirement of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (out of which one was to be of the petitioner's brother Sharwarmal).
The petitioner had moved the High Court with an assertion that he may be released on furnishing personal bond only as he is a poor man belonging to the B.P.L. family.
Case Title: Sarvjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
While hearing a matter pertaining to maintenance, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the husband, who is a welder, is almost like a skilled workman, and thus, it cannot be presumed that he is not earning sufficiently to maintain the petitioner-wife.
The court also opined that even if the petitioner-wife is stitching clothes domestically and has some income source, then also the husband is liable to pay maintenance to the wife along with her two children.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while allowing the criminal revision petition, observed,
"This Court, after hearing the submissions and analyzing the record of the case, is of the firm opinion that even if the petitioner-wife is stitching clothes domestically then also she is entitled to get the maintenance. The respondent No.2-husband is a welder, which is almost like a skilled workman, and thus, it cannot be presumed that he is not earning sufficiently to maintain the petitioner-wife, even if the petitioner-wife has some income source, then also there are three family members whom the respondent No.2-husband is liable to maintain. In the given circumstances, it is a fit case for grant of maintenance to the petitioner-wife."
Case Title: Richa Dharu v. Hemant Panwar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a lady suffering from cruelty on account of her husband's conduct cannot be said to have deserted him or to be voluntarily residing away. The court added that the circumstances created by the husband, if not conducive, are bound to push away the wife.
Essentially, the case of the petitioner-wife is that respondent-husband is working on the post of Branch Manager in Bank of Baroda and is earning income of Rs.90,000/- per month. She submitted that the trial court has denied the monthly maintenance to her only on the ground that the divorce has been allowed between the parties. As per her, the divorce was ex-parte claimed by the respondent.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that in the present times, when the education itself is very costly and the daily life requires a respectable amount, the denial of maintenance to the wife and the daughter cannot be justified.
The petitioner was thus directed to pay Rs. 15,000 per month maintenance to them.
The Petitioner had filed the present criminal review petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 and 401 CrPC against the Family Court's order against an order which allowed the wife's application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance.
Case Title: Smt Kamla v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the condition imposed by the Income Tax Act that a person residing in India for a continuous period of 180 days would be considered to be a resident of India, is for the purpose of bringing such person within the purview of the Income Tax Act.
The court added that the definition is simply designed for the purpose of including the persons who are in India for a period of 180 days to bring in the tax net and not for the purpose of determining the citizenship or for deciding the permanent resident status of such person.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while dismissing an appeal, observed,
"We are prima facie of the view that there is no reason to accept the assertion of the appellant that the respondent was not a resident of India by applying the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 because, both the acts have a different object and purposes. The condition imposed by the Income Tax Act that a person residing in India for a continuous period of 180 days would be considered to be a resident of India, is for the purpose of bringing such person in the purview of the Income Tax Act. The definition is simply designed for the purpose of including the persons who are in India for a period of 180 days to bring in the tax net and not for the purpose of determining the citizenship or for deciding the permanent resident status of such person."
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. .v. Sharda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that remarrying of the deceased's wife does not disentitle her from claiming compensation for death of her husband under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The court added that the amount of compensation awarded by the trial court looking at the young age of the deceased and number of claimants cannot be said to be unreasonable.
Justice Rameshwar Vyas, while dismissing the first appeal preferred by the Insurance Company observed,
"Contention with regard to remarrying of the deceased's wife is concerned, the same does not disentitle her from claiming compensation for death of her husband. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial court looking to the young age of the deceased and number of claimants cannot be said to be unreasonable. There is no merit in this appeal."
Case Title: Manisha Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
The Rajasthan High Court has directed a woman, who was married off while a minor and now wishes to part her ways, to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (Rural) for appropriate security.
Notably, the woman has approached the court with the grievance that her parents are pressuring her to live with the person with whom her marriage was solemnised while she was a child. She argued that such marriage was illegal, as she was not of marriageable age at the relevant time.
Moreover, the woman informed the court that though she wants to pursue her studies, her family members would get her arrested or forcefully take her to her village and restrict her movement due to which she would be unable to complete her studies.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed,
"Having regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that her parents and family members will intrude in her life and liberty, instant petition is being disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (Rural) for appropriate security so as to enable her to take up her examinations at Jaipur which are going to be scheduled from 11.06.2022 to 06.07.2022."
Case Title: Bhavin Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the courts should not rush to issue standing warrants and initiate proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code, unless they are satisfied that the accused is intentionally evading or circumventing the warrants in order to avoid the prosecution.
Under Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 82 deals with the proclamation for person absconding, while section 83 talks about attachment of property of person absconding.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, while allowing the petition and setting aside the trial court's order, observed,
"In the opinion of this Court, endeavor of a Court should be to ensure proper compliance of the statutory provisions and service of the summons as mandated by law. Service of summons is a bed-rock of principles of natural justice. The Courts should not rush to issue standing warrant and initiating proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code, unless they are satisfied that the accused is intentionally evading or circumventing the warrants in order to avoid the prosecution."
Case Title: Bheru Lal v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that pendency or not pendency of a revision petition is not a ground for a party to avert cross-examination before the trial court.
The clarification was made by Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati in the plea moved by one Bheru Lal in connection with a case under Income Tax Act, stating that his right to cross examination was closed. He sought one more opportunity for cross-examination on cost.
The respondent's counsel vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that number of opportunities were given to the petitioner to make the necessary cross-examination but he has failed to do and has been making excuses before the trial court regarding the pendency of the revision petition and thus the delaying in whole proceeding.
However, the court, in the interest of justice, granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to complete the necessary cross-examination on the next date already fixed by the trial court.
Case Title: Chitrank Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
The Rajasthan High Court has granted protection to a lawyer and his family members, whose house was pelted with stones, allegedly at the instructions of person confined in jail.
The court has directed the police authorities to extend necessary protection by deploying police personnel at petitioner-lawyer's house and also instruct PCR to have regular visits so that petitioner and his family members may be protected.
Essentially, the case of the petitioner-lawyer is that on the midnight of 14.06.2022, a few persons came in white Renault Tribber Car and threw stones at his house, due to which glass of his car and window at first floor of his house were damaged. The incident was recorded in a CCTV Camera installed at the house of the petitioner-lawyer. Further, the petitioner received a threat call on his Mobile from a person named Mridul. The person claimed himself to be confined in Barrack No.6 of jail and gave a threat of killing the petitioner and disclosed that the incident in the night of 14.06.2022 was committed on his instructions.
Case Title: Bhan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application / renewal of license for firearms is not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out by the party. In this regard, the court pursued Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 which talks about variation, suspension and revocation of licences.
The present petitioner had raised grievance regarding the arms license.
The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days and asked the respective District Magistrate to consider the representation afresh by passing speaking orders, while keeping in mind the existing policy of the State.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi, observed,
"This Court is of the opinion that any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application/ refusal/ renewal of license for firearms is not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out. Looking into the submission made by learned counsel for the parties that it would be suffice if their rights are redetermined by the respondents, while keeping into consideration the judgment rendered in Khem Singh (supra), the same is accepted."
Case Title: Victim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a rape survivor to medically terminate 18 weeks pregnancy, stating that the anguish caused by an unwarranted pregnancy arising out of rape may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the victim.
Notably, the petitioner-victim had also lodged an FIR at Police Station Kaman, Bharatpur for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 376D of the Indian Penal Code. The present petition was filed seeking directions to terminate her unwarranted pregnancy as she no longer intends to continue with the same.
On 31.05.2022, a coordinate bench of the court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur to ensure that the victim girl be medically examined by the Medical Board comprising of expert doctors of the field to opine about the status of the pregnancy of the petitioner as well as whether termination of pregnancy of the petitioner is feasible or not.
A vacation bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal, while allowing the petition, observed,
"The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bharatpur is directed to constitute a team of Gynaecologist, who after obtaining the consent of the victim in writing and looking to the advanced stage and the physician health of the victim girl, to get the pregnancy terminated at the earliest, if medically possible."
Case Title: Gopi Kishan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp with connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 197
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that if any legal advice rendered by an Advocate goes wrong, the same would not subject him to criminal prosecution, as a lawyer. At most, he may be held liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, if it is established by placing cogent evidence on record.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed,
" If any legal advice rendered by an Advocate goes wrong, the same would not subject him to criminal prosecution, as a lawyer. As observed above, an Advocate, at the most, may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, if it is established by placing a cogent evidence on record, but an Advocate cannot be charged for the offences, as alleged herein, alongwith other conspirators."
The Bench was of the view that if an Advocate is prosecuted merely for rendering a legal advice/opinion, it shall not be possible for any lawyer to render such professional advice, more particularly, when such a professional advice, if found to be non favourable for the client, the same would result into criminal prosecution against a lawyer, and in such circumstances, the system of justice delivery would suffer, as lawyers being an important component of the justice delivery system would not be able to give their professional advice without fear and favour.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
While hearing a PIL for removal of statue of Shri Babasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar allegedly causing obstruction, the Rajasthan High Court recently observed that the placement of the statue and free flow of the traffic both are matters, which can be looked into by the authorities and not by the court.
The court opined that the petitioners have chosen only a particular spot in the city rather than coming out with general prayer for removal of unauthorised statues in the city. The court remarked that the petition appears to be only for personal interest, not for public interest.
Further, the court directed the Local Body concerned to decide the issue as soon as possible.
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while disposing the petition, observed,
"The Local Body concerned should decide the issue as soon as possible. The placement of the statue and free flow of the traffic both are matters, which can be looked into by the authorities and not by the Court. In view of above, we direct the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Jaipur to examine the whole matter afresh after going through the material on record and take appropriate decision in accordance with law as early as possible."
Case Title: Pooja Gurjar & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 199
While hearing a protection petition filed by a married couple, the vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that if the petitioner's income is more than taxable income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Superintendent of Police after considering the financial aspect may charge appropriate financial charges from them.
Essentially, the petitioners got married on 22.03.2022. However, this marriage was not approved by their relatives and respondents No. 4 to 14 and fearing them, they had filed a petition seeking police protection at their residence and place of work.
The court asked the petitioners to approach the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police and added that it would be the duty of the said authority to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners, for which he may take such suitable measures as found necessary in accordance with law.
Case Title: Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. Staff Selection Board, Jaipur & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
The vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that the High Court cannot direct the authorities as to when and on which date a particular examination is to be conducted.
Essentially, the petitioners alleged that the date of examination for the recruitment to the post of Lab Assistant which is going to be conducted on 28.06.2002 and 29.06.2022 is clashing with certain other examinations. Additionally, the petition sought that the candidates be allowed sufficient time for preparation of the examination because, as per the petitioner, the syllabus for Lab Assistant examination has been amended and in place of the earlier short syllabus, a lengthy syllabus comprising many new topics has been introduced.
The court observed that all the recruitment examinations as well as graduation examinations are not conducted for a single person or a specific group of people. These are the examinations for which an advance time table is prepared by the concerned department and are conducted after months of prior preparation, added the court.
Case Title: Puneet Mohnot v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
The Rajasthan High Court has said that whether or not the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be invoked against a private person is a question that requires consideration.
Observing thus, it granted bail to a Chartered Accountant, who it held is not a public servant, booked under the Act after recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs.
Essentially, the applicant-petitioner was arrested in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan for the offence(s) under Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of IPC. On account of certain reasons, he was allegedly removed from the services of the complainant, who was his client. The applicant-petitioner alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case due to vindictiveness of the complainant.
Case Title: Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
The Rajasthan High Court recently imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on a High Court Advocate for casting serious aspersions on the court, thereby lowering its majesty. The Court also commented on the Advocate's poor command over language, which it said was reflected from the application filed by him.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed,
"These aspersions amount to browbeating and lowering the dignity of the court and are thoroughly contemnous. The petitioner, being an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan is required to act as an officer of the court, but it seems that he has scant respect for the court and total disregard for administration of justice."
The counsel had filed an application seeking review of the judgment rendered in a criminal reference. He was aggrieved by the fact that while deciding the reference, the High Court did not invite inputs from the Bar, subordinate State judiciary.
At the outset, the court opined that the petitioner appears to be peeved by non-inclusion of his name in the array of Advocates, whose presence is noted in the judgment.
Case Title: Gurjant Singh v. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 203
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that trial Court is required to prima-facie ascertain the relevancy and requirement of the proposed witnesses while deciding an application for summoning of witnesses in terms of Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The court however made it clear that the applicant may be called upon only to show the relevance or need of such witness(es) but he/ she cannot be asked to establish or prove such requirement; The requirement has to be determined by the Court.
Order XVI Rule (1) and (2) of the CPC in unequivocal terms provide that the court suo moto or on an application, can issue summons to a witness to appear in the court. Further, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Order XVI enjoins upon the party desirous of getting a summon issued to a witness to state in its application the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned.
Case Title: Vimlesh Bansal v. Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 204
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a second arbitration application would be non-maintainable when the order of the arbitrator terminating arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) was not challenged under Section 14(2) of the A&C Act.
The Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari held that the legal maxim 'Vigilantibus Non-Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt' which means that 'the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights' would squarely apply to a situation where the petitioner slept over its right to challenge the order of termination but filed a second application for appointment of arbitrator.
Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Person Accused Of GST Evasion
Case Title: Kamal Chand Bothra v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has granted bail to the person accused of GST evasion of Rs. 8.64 crore.
The petitioner has filed a bail application. The petitioner was charged with the offence punishable under Section 132 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The petitioner submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He has been behind bars since May 26, 2002. The offence against the petitioner is compoundable and he had deposited the amount of Rs. 87 lakhs. The maximum punishment is 5 years, and the conclusion of the trial may take a long time.
The department contended that the petitioner had evaded GST of Rs. 8.64 crores. The statements under Section 70 of the GST Act were recorded and are admissible in evidence. The petitioner is a habitual offender, so bail should be dismissed.
The court directed that the petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.
GST Circular Contra To GST Act, Can't Deny The Claim For ITC refund; Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 206
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the GST circular dated 31.03.2020, repugnant to the parent legislation, cannot be applied to oust the legitimate claim for an accumulated ITC refund.
The division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has observed that the supplying dealer would be entitled to claim a refund of accumulated unutilised tax credit under Section 54 (3) (ii) of the CGST Act irrespective of the fact that the input and output supplies are the same by ignoring the circular dated 31.03.2020.
Case Title: Asharam @ Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected the third application filed by self-styled godman & life convict Asaram Bapu seeking suspension of sentence for rape of a minor. The court further opined that he does not deserve indulgence of bail.
Asaram was convicted and sentenced to life for offences under Sections 370(4), 342, 506, 376(2)(f) and 376D of the Indian Penal Code by a Special POCSO Court at Jodhpur in April 2018.
The court also noted that two previous applications for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of Asaram have been dismissed by the court after arguments had been advanced to some extent albeit by way of withdrawal. It further noted that Asaram continues to be in custody in another trial ongoing at Gujarat, for similar offences.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vineet Kumar Mathur, observed,
"In wake of the discussion made hereinabove; looking to the nature and gravity of the allegations, and considering the fact that the appeal itself is ripe for hearing, we are of the opinion that the appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail. Hence, the instant application for suspension of sentences is rejected as being devoid of merit."
Case Title: Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
While hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging different age of superannuation for Allopathic Doctors vis-a-vis Ayurvedic Doctors, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that Ayurvedic Doctors are entitled to continue in service till completion of age of 62 years, which is applicable in the case of Allopathic Doctors.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. LL 2021 SC 346. The court opined that the Supreme Court has left no scope for arguments on the part of the respondents to defend their action of discrimination in the matter.
During the course of hearing, the court was informed that the age of superannuation of Allopathic Doctors was enhanced from 60 to 62 years w.e.f. 31.03.2016. The court noted that some of the petitioners are still working, while some of the petitioners have retired after attaining the age of 60 years after the issuance of notification.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
The Rajasthan High Court recently upheld termination of an employee who obtained compassionate appointment by concealment of facts. The petitioner was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him allegedly on account of paucity of space in attestation form.
The court observed that the petitioner failed to give due details and therefore, violated Clause-2(n) of the appointment letter and also suppressed the information. The court opined that the tribunal has duly considered said violations and suppression on the part of the petitioner.
Essentially, the petitioner was given appointment on the post of LDC on compassionate grounds on 24.12.2012. As per him, under Clause-13 of the Attestation form, he had disclosed all information, except Clause-13(J), wherein on account of paucity of space, he was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him. On account of said concealment, respondents issued show cause notice which reflected that two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. The petitioner's representation was also rejected and termination order was passed. Later, CAT, Jaipur Bench upheld the termination order holding that it was not against the Rules, that there is no allegation of mala-fides and natural justice was adhered to by the respondent. Being aggrieved against the same, present petition was filed.
Case Title: Smt. Rashmi Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 210
The Rajasthan High Court expressed its displeasure over the trial court's explanation for not allowing the prayer of the petitioner-wife to withdraw the complaint against her husband Rajendra Sharma for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.
Justice Birendra Kumar, while allowing the petition and quashing the criminal case, observed,
"The explanation of the court below does not deserve acceptance because the explanation is against the material on the record. Moreover there was no reason to send the record to Lok Adalat when both the parties were not present before the court because Lok Adalat could not have done anything without consent of the parties. The inaction of the court below has led to unnecessary harassment to the petitioner to approach this court ventilating the same grievance. If the Public Prosecutor was prosecuting the matter, it was itself alien to the scheme of CrPC"
Case Title: Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
The Rajasthan High Court recently set aside a single bench decision which permitted levy of duty under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 on an amalgamation instrument executed outside the State pursuant to sanction of Himachal Pradesh High Court, not only in relation to properties situated in Rajasthan, but also on the transfer of shares.
A division bench comprising Justices Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Birendra Kumar observed,
"... insofar as transfer of shares by virtue of order of amalgamation passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, it did not happen within the territory of the State of Rajasthan. Both the companies are situated outside the territory of Rajasthan. The entire proceedings of arrangement and amalgamation and its sanction took place outside the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, to that extent, stamp duty under the Stamp Act of 1998 would not be leviable... "
The bench made it clear that an instrument executed outside the State of Rajasthan would be chargeable with duty when it bears a "territorial nexus"; tt is not that every instrument as specified in the Schedule appended to the Stamp Act of 1998, executed outside the State, becomes chargeable to stamp duty. "Only those relating to any property situated in the State or relating to any matter or thing done or to be done in the State and received in the State."
Case Title: Karan Johar v. State, Through PP. & Another with other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
The Rajasthan government on Monday informed the High Court that the Police is set to file a closure report in a criminal case registered against Karan Johar and cricketers KL Rahul and Hardik Pandya over their remarks on the filmmaker's talk show- Koffee With Karan.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati was hearing their petitions for quashing of FIRs when the Public Prosecutor informed that final report/ closure report has been chalked on 11.3.2021 and the same is likely to be submitted before the competent court expeditiously.
The trio was booked for allegedly making certain derogatory statements against women during an episode of the Bollywood talk show.
The FIRs were filed by one Devaram Meghwal at police station Luni, Jodhpur under sections 153(A) ,292, 295(A), 504 of IPC, 67 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 and 3(1)(u) & 3(1)(v) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989.
Case Title: Madhu Saini and Others. v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to regularize the admissions of 16 medical aspirants who were admitted to a Dental College in Kota, without qualifying the NEET examination. It however granted Rs.10 Lakhs compensation to each such student, stating that the College had made a "false promise" assuring them a seat in MDS course.
The court also directed the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-Rajasthan University of Health Sciences to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the erring officials who had handed over degrees of the Petitioner-students, despite an order of the court to withhold the same.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur observed,
" The fact remains that the petitioners were admitted in the Course in the year 2017 and their three years in the College is sheer wastage of energy, time and money spent on their education by their parents... This Court, though cannot regularize the admissions which were granted to the petitioners, however, the petitioners need to be compensated by the respondent-College for the illegality committed by them while giving admission to the petitioners and further furnishing incorrect and false information to different authorities i.e. respondent-University and respondent-DCI."
Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against Discrimination Based On Covid-19 Vaccination Status
Case Title: Jyotsana Rathore v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
The Rajasthan High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the state government's order restricting access to indoor sports, gyms, restaurants and other public places to people who have received at least one vaccination dose against Covid-19.
A division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta dismissed the petition after the Advocate General informed the Court that the Supreme Court has passed a detailed order, declaring that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated and the vaccine mandates imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the context of COVID-19 pandemic are "not proportionate".
The High Court thus dismissed the PIL filed by social activist Jyotsana Rathore, noting that the government will reconsider the existing guidelines relating to Covid-19 pandemic in light of the observations given by the Supreme Court.
The Petitioner had expressed concern that the impugned order makes the vaccination process mandatory and discriminates against similarly placed people based on the vaccination status.
S.18 Arms Act | No Appeal Lies Against Issuance Of Arms Licence: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Patel v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
The Rajasthan High Court has held that there is no provision where appeal can be entertained under Section 18 of the Arms Act against anorder of issuance of arms licnece.
Notably, section 18 of the Arms Act states that any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a licence or varying the conditions of a licence or by an order of the licensing authority or the authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate, suspending or revoking a licence may prefer an appeal against that order to such authority and within such period as may be prescribed.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed,
"A bare perusal of Section 18 of the Act of 1959 clearly reveals that any person can file appeal under the said provision being aggrieved with the action of the licencing authority of refusing to grant a licence or varying the condition of licence or against the order of suspension or revoking of licence. There is no provision where appeal can be entertained under Section 18 of the Arms Act against the order of issuance of arms licnece."
Case Title: Bhanwarlal v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 216
The Rajasthan High Court observed that since externment order curtails the life and liberty of a person, the same is required to be passed with due care and caution.
Essentially, the present writ petition was filed against the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (city), Bikaner and the appellate order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, whereby the petitioner was declared as a "Goonda" and an order of externment was passed against him.
The authorities had considered the two criminal cases registered against the petitioner and it was concluded that the petitioner is involved in notorious activities and externment of the petitioner is necessary.
Case Title: Vishnu Oil Mill Private Ltd. v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 217
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to declare the Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as unconstitutional to the extent it facilitates a joint application by multiple financial creditors, to prove minimum default of one crore rupees.
The petitioner has also approached the court on being aggrieved by the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur, while dismissing the petition, observed,
"Having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances as available on record and after appreciating the arguments advanced at bar, we are of the firm view that the statute i.e., Section 7 of the IBC as amended vide Gazette Notification dated 05.06.2020, admits no other interpretation except that a group of financial creditors can converge and join hands to touch the financial limit of Rs.1 crore stipulated under Section 7 so as to initiate a CIRP under the IBC."
Case Title: Abdul Majeed v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 218
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the authority is required to reach satisfaction that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment but in cases where three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the order under Section 148A for issuance of notice could be passed if there were no statutory impediment as contained in Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastav and Justice Shubha Mehta has observed that the department failed to place before the Court any material to suggest that the income exceeding Rs. 50,00,000 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, which would warrant issuance of an order under Section 148A(d) followed by issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Smt. Rekha Kumari v. Hemendra Choudhary @ Hemraj
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that failure to mention the exact date of marriage in an application for divorce alone cannot be the reason for dismissing such application.
A bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Farzand Ali observed that if the Family Court suspects that the averments on the aspect of marriage are inconclusive, it can exercise powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act to put questions to the parties, so as to verify the truthfulness of the averments made in the application.
Essentially, the instant misc. appeal was filed by the appellant assailing the judgment-cum-decree passed by the Family Court whereby the application preferred by the appellant and respondent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent was dismissed.
Rajasthan High Court Upholds Order Imposing ₹10 Lakh Cost On Medical Institute For "Bench Hunting"
Case Title: Dhanwantri Institute of Medical Science v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 220
The Principal Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has upheld the single judge bench order, whereby a cost of Rs. 10 lakh was imposed on a medical institution for forum shopping.
After the petition filed by Dhanwantri Institute of Medical Science was dismissed as withdrawn from the Jaipur bench of the High Court in April, the institute had approached its principal seat the very next day, seeking similar reliefs, without disclosing the factum of the former petition.
In this light, the single judge had dismissed the second writ with 10 lakh cost. Practice of bench hunting has become common these days, the Judge had observed.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan and Others. v. Rekha Kumari and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that ex-post facto consent of Panchayati Raj Institution for transfer of Medical and Health Department employees serving with it is lawful. The sanction is required under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Rules, 2011.
The court was hearing a batch of 91 State-appeals against a single bench order which held that state's decision to itself pass transfer orders without seeking the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department cannot be countenanced.
The basic controversy involved was whether employees, whose parent cadre is Medical and Health Department and whose services have been provided to the Panchayati Raj institution, can be transferred without following procedure laid down under Rule 8.
The said rule stipulates that the department concerned can issue orders for transfer from one district to another district with the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department.
Case Title: Punjab National Bank and Another v. Mukesh Kumar Soni
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the decision of a bank denying compassionate appointment saying that the deceased's family was not facing "indigent circumstances" warranting employment under the State's scheme of 2014.
PNB had rejected the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment after his father expired while serving as a Head Cashier, on the ground that the family was not facing indigent circumstances.
The instant appeal was preferred against a single bench order reversing the Bank's decision.
The bank contended that the elder son of the deceased employee is employed in TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) with an annual income of ₹6.47 lakhs. The family had received terminal dues to the extent of ₹16.42 lakhs with no financial liability. Apart from this, the family owned two houses and received a family pension to the tune of ₹15,993 per month.
Case Title: Rahul Jain and Others. v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Others.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
The Rajasthan High Court has opined that the recruiting agency-Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) cannot refuse to recommend names of eligible and suitable candidates to fill up all notified vacancies in Banks, if the candidates of desired merit are available.
Any delay occasioned in filling up the notified vacancies may render many eligible candidates ineligible to participate in the next recruitment process, added the court.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur, observed,
"The Recruiting Agency cannot deny allotment of eligible candidates to participating RRBs (Regional Rural Banks) arbitrarily especially when sufficient number of candidates are available with it. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce."
Case Title: M/s. Shrimali Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 224
The Rajasthan High Court has held that, by no stretch of imagination, can brand new aluminium sections be placed on equivalence with aluminium scrap. The goods were fraudulently described as aluminium scrap.
The division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur has observed that the department was justified in detaining the petitioner's vehicle and the goods after noticing the blatant mis-description during interception.
The petitioner has assailed the order by which the vehicle of the petitioner was detained by the officials of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Anti-Evasion, Udaipur and also the show cause notice.
The petitioner submitted that the vehicle/goods of the petitioner were illegally detained by the respondent/department while in transit. Aluminum scrap was being transported in the vehicle, and it was falsely shown to be aluminium in the inspection/detention memo.
Case Title: Gram Panchayat, Dujana Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur District Pali, Through Its Sarpanch Smt. Panku Devi v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 225
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking direction to the National Highway Authority of India to not construct a by-pass on the highways.
The PIL filed by the Gram Panchayat of a village close to NH 325 also sought direction to the NHAI to construct the highway through the populated area of the village so that the development of the village can take place likewise.
The court opined that ex facie the writ petition has been filed for oblique and malafide motives.
Notably, after arguing the matter at great length, the counsel representing the petitioner, craved liberty to withdraw the petition.
Case Title: Ratna Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 226
The Rajasthan High Court has recently allowed a plea seeking directions to the state Police to refund an amount of Rs. 1,30,913 charged from the petitioner on account of salary, allowance and training expenses along with interest. The petitioner was asked to deposit aforesaid amount spent on his training and remuneration, in order to grant relieving letter / NOC.
Notably, Justice Rekha Borana disposed of the petition in the same terms Mohan Singh Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. of this court. In Mohan Singh, the court had directed the respondents to reimburse the amount of salary (excluding the training expenses) that was recovered from the petitioners, who had resigned to join other State services. The court had asked the respondents to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment.
Case Title: Sunil Bhati v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 227
The Rajasthan High Court has recently directed the trial court to immediately permit a husband-petitioner, charged with causing dowry death of his wife, to voluntarily undergo Narco Analysis Test in support of his defence and thereby enter the same into evidence.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed,
"Even if the Narco Analysis test may not have an absolute binding impact upon the result of the trial, it is certainly is a scientific technique recognized by law, and is being utilized in the course of investigation, by prosecution agencies as well as by the Courts, to support and corroborate the main evidence. And thus, denying the petitioner an opportunity to render such defence evidence at the appropriate stage, as is statutorily provided to him, would not only be detrimental to the cause of justice, but shall also be a clear violation of his statutory right envisaged under Section 233 Cr.P.C."
Case Title: Malik Builders v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 228
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a person making "Voluntary Disclosure" after being subjected to any enquiry, investigation, or audit is clearly ineligible to avail the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS, 2019).
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas has observed that the petitioner fell within the mischief under Section 125(1)(f) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and was thus not entitled to avail the benefit of the SVLDRS, 2019 by submitting a declaration.
Case Title: Simran Raj @ Salma Nat v. Union of India and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 229
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that Passport Authorities are not expected to make their own independent enquiry, if there is a dispute or differences with regard to the date of birth, place of birth or name entered in the passport, especially when such entries are made on the basis of records, produced by the passport holder.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur held that the Passport Authorities are always within their competence to direct the parties to produce relevant documents either from the Authorities functioning under the Births & Deaths Registration Act or from the Judicial Magistrate or from the Civil Court, as the case may be.
Rajasthan HC Prohibits Reduction Of Area of Tal Chappar Sanctuary, Issues Slew Of Directions
Case Title: In Re Tal Chappar Sanctuary, Sujangarh (Churu).
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 230
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur has recently prohibited any edeavour to reduce the area of the Tal Chappar Sanctuary.
Placing reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Hospitality Association of Mudumalai Vs. In Defence of Environment and Animals & Ors. etc. (2020), the court observed that the power of the court to give direction on the issues, of which cognizance has been taken in this suo moto petition, is no longer res integra.
Case Title: Priyanka Shrimali v. State of Rajasthan and Others with other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 231
In a significant development, a 3-judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court has observed that the use of the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 depriving a married daughter from right of consideration for compassionate appointment, violates the equality clause and cannot be countenanced.
While answering a reference made by the division bench, the 3-judge bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Arun Bhansali, observed,
"The provision of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, which excludes the married daughter from definition of dependent prior to its amendment vide notification dated 28.10.2021, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, the word 'unmarried' from the definition of 'dependent', is struck down. Further, in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 also the word unmarried daughters/adopted unmarried daughter, shall be read as daughters/adopted daughter."
Case Title: Kastur Chand v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others
Citations: LiveLaw 2022 (Raj) 232
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that any citizen whose rights are infringed by any Authority or by any person, has a right to seek remedy by approaching the Courts of law, however, such right should not be misused by concealing important facts.
The court added that the litigant who files any case before any forum has to come with clean hands and he has to disclose complete facts before the Court.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, while directing the petitioner to deposit a cost of Rs. 25,00,000/- with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, observed,
"This case is a classic example where petitioner has taken the entire judicial system for a ride as before the Board of Revenue, he never disclosed that the writ petition filed by him has already been dismissed and further while filing of the present writ petition, he has not disclosed as what transpired in earlier round of litigation. This conduct of the petitioner is required to be deprecated by this Court."
Case Title: Parmesh Chand Yadav v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 233
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the reassessment notice cannot be challenged if the assessee failed to submit crypto currency account transactions to the income tax department.
The division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta held that bank transactions alone are not sufficient to verify the trade in crypto currency. The assessee ought to have submitted before the department the relevant ledger statement evidencing that he had entered into trade of crypto currency in the manner as has been asserted by him by way of the information stated by him.
Case Title: Surya Wires Private Limited v. Rajasthan Skills and Livelihoods Development Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 234
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that any challenge against an arbitrator on the grounds contained in the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which give rise to justifiable doubts regarding his independence or impartiality, can be gone into by the Court only after the Arbitral Tribunal has given an award.
The Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari ruled that where the arbitration clause provided for referring the disputes to the Empowered Committee of Ministry of Rural Development, the Empowered Committee cannot be said to be an interested party, ineligible to be constituted as an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, since it was not a party to the agreement between the Rajasthan Skills and Livelihoods Development Corporation and the applicant.
Case Title: Dr. Arvind Kishore v. Neha Mathur and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 235
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that deductions from husband's monthly income due to certain leaves availed by him cannot become a part of the baseline in computing maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as in all likelihood, the same will fluctuate over time.
Considering the same, the court rejected the husband's claim that his total monthly income in his income-tax documents was incorrectly calculated by the family court and that certain statutory deductions were kept into consideration while arriving at the final amount of monthly maintenance payable to the non-applicant/wife.
Case Title: Anand Shankar v. The Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur Through Managing Director and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 236
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an employee's writ petition, which was filed with a delay of more than 40 years, seeking pay scale No. 2 of Helper-I w.e.f. April 1974 with all consequential benefits regarding salary and arrears in cash payment.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur court opined that it is a settled law that the court does not come to the rescue of those who are not vigilant about their rights. "Even equity has to be claimed at the right juncture and not after expiry of reasonable time," the court said.
Case Title: Rajnikant and Others. v. The Secretary To His Excellency The Governor Of Rajasthan, Governors Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Jaipur and Others with other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 237
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that under our Constitutional scheme, a Governor is the Executive Head of the State and all transactions of the State Government are carried out under his authority and name. Thus, the court, while placing reliance on Articles 154 and 162, ruled that it is axiomatic that the office of the Governor is part and parcel of the State Government and as a natural corollary, its Secretariat is also a part of the State Government.
Notably, Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal was examining the status and position of a Governor under our Constitution, i.e., whether he is an independent entity from the State Government or a part of it.
"Logically, once the Governor is part of the State Government, as a natural corollary, its Secretariat must also be part of the State Government", said the court. It added that the Constitution does not envisage a separate and independent secretarial service attached to a Governor office inasmuch as wherever it is so required, specific provisions in this regard exist; such as, Articles 98, 146, 187, 229 and 218. Thus, the court opined that there is no constitutional provision providing for a separate and independent Governor Secretarial Service
Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty
Case Title: Sudershan Lal Gupta and Others v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 238
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the levy of GST on reverse charge basis on royalty of mining extraction. Noting that the Coordinate Benches of the Rajasthan High Court, in several cases, have dismissed the writ petitions challenging the levy of GST on royalty, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta ruled that it was bound by the final orders passed by the Coordinate Benches.
The Court observed that the orders passed by the Rajasthan High Court, repelling the challenge against levy of GST on royalty, have been assailed by filing an SLP before the Supreme Court, which is yet to be decided by the Apex Court.
Case Title: Mr Murugan Mp S and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 239
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that summons/ warrant cannot be issued for insisting personal appearance of a party when such party has entered appearance and is represented by a counsel.
Justice Dinesh Mehta thus granted relief to two Directors of Nokia India against whom bailable warrants were issued by a District Consumer Commission in Jodhpur. The bench also directed the Commission to decide the petitioners' application for dropping the proceedings against them. It also made clear that till the application is decided, the petitioners' personal presence shall not be insisted upon.
Case Title: Dr. Kamlesh Sharma and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 240
While dealing with a writ petition challenging a Rajasthan Government notification, the Jaipur Bench of the High Court held that the distinction created between 'Allopathic' and 'Ayurvedic' doctors by setting different retirement ages, is unconstitutional.
The impugned notification had enhanced the retirement age from 60 to 62 years only for doctors of medical and health services, while excluding Ayurvedic, Chikitsa Vibhag, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy doctors from its mandate.
Case Title: Niranjan v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 241
Disposing of a habeas corpus petition, the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court recently said that in absence of an allegation of 'illegal detention' in cases where a 'Missing Person Report' has already been filed, the proper course available would be to approach the concerned magistrate.
The petitioner had filed a habeas corpus petition before the Rajasthan High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for and seeking production of his major daughter before the Court.
The contents of the petition revealed that a 'Missing Person Report' had already been filed by the petitioner before approaching the High Court but no allegation of his daughter having been illegally detained by any person was raised in the same.
After considering the contentions and perusing the petition, the Bench of Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Sameer Jain said that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner in the given facts of the case was to enquire about the progress of the 'Missing Person Report,' which the petitioner could rightfully do by approaching the concerned magistrate.
Case Title: Rituraj Singh Rathore and Another v. Principal Secretary, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 242
While disposing of a writ petition, the Rajasthan High Court recently passed directions for appointment of proper medical and technical staff in all the blood banks and for the mandatory usage of ELISA IV test kits on a uniform basis throughout the State.
Justices Sandeep Mehta and Kuldeep Mathur referred to an Expert Committee Report observing that proper manpower was not yet available in blood banks across the State, which had meant that sensitive medical equipment were not being put to proper use.
"We hereby direct the Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan to ensure that proper medical and technical staff, wherever required, is selected and appointed in the blood banks across the State of Rajasthan at the earliest and as far as possible within next six months. The ELISA IV test kits shall henceforth be used uniformly in all blood banks/centres," said the Court.
Case title - Chandra Devi and another v. State Of Rajasthan and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 243
The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has observed that a compassionate appointment cannot be denied to the child born from the second wife of the deceased employee.
To arrive at the conclusion, the bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur relied upon the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 wherein it was observed that a compassionate appointment policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate.
Case title - Adam Godwin and others v. Union of India and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 244
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that it is essential to maintain and upkeep the Detention Centres in a good condition as it is the basic requirement of human dignity.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Farjand Ali was essentially dealing with a habeas corpus plea related to 3 detenues of the Tanzanian nationals. The plea was disposed of in March 2022, however, the matter was kept open regarding the requisite steps to be taken for the upkeep and maintenance of the Detention Center, Alwar.
Taking into account their statements, the Court, while stressing the importance to maintain the detention centers, made the following remark,
"We feel that it is absolutely essential to maintain and upkeep the Detention Centre in a good condition because the foreign nationals are being housed therein. Pursuant to being released and deported to their respective countries, they would carry (Downloaded on 11/10/2022 at 03:30:41 PM) (3 of 3) [HC-12/2022] impression regarding the conditions of the institution where they are housed till the date of their deportation. Otherwise also, the basic requirements of human dignity mandate that the conditions of such institutions should be upto the mark."
Case Title: Syed Gohar Husain Chisti v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 245
The Rajasthan High Court recently denied bail to a Ajmer Sharif Dargah cleric who allegedly provoked people and raised Sar Tan Se Juda slogan in a protest rally related to alleged statements made by BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain denied bail to Syed Gohar Husain Chisti as it noted that if he is released on bail, he might pose a threat to society at large and affect the law and order situation in the State.
"Moreover, the applicant is alleged to have been actively involved in the incident as the mastermind. In contravention of the categorical directions of the police authorities, the law and order was put in jeopardy and communal discomfort was caused throughout the country, including certain unfortunate incidents at Amravati and Udaipur," the Court further remarked as it denied him bail.
Case Title: Rahul v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 246
The Rajasthan High Court on Friday granted 15-day parole to a life convict on a petition filed by his wife, who is issueless and is desirous of retaining/maintaining her marriage with the convict and preserving her lineage.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Sameer Jain took into account the young age of the convict-petitioner and ordered to release him on parole on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs along with two surety bonds of Rs. 1 lakh each.
Case Title: Sant Vaidehi Balabh Dev Acharyaji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 247
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation which sought directions from the court to restrain candidates from visiting religious places during election campaigns.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Mithal in the order passed on October 18 observed that the fresh petition was "nothing but a virtual repetition" of that plea filed in 2018 and that the reliefs sought then are the same.
"It is settled law that successive writ petitions for the same cause of action are not maintainable and that filing of second writ petition for the same purpose is an abuse of the process of law," said the court.
Case title: ADJ, Gulabpura, Bhilwara v. Rameshchandra
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 248
The Rajasthan High Court recently directed a police constable, who slapped a defence lawyer during his cross-examination as a witness, to submit Rs. 25K with DLSA after accpeting his uncondititional apology tendered before the Court.
With this, the bench Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Farjand Ali disposed of the criminal contempt petition registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the Additional District Judge, Gulabpura.
"...we are of the opinion that unconditional apology tendered by the respondent-contemnor can be treated as bonafide and keeping in view the fact that at the time of incident, the respondent-contemnor was having service period of around seven years only and he was appearing as a witness in the court for the first time, we are of the opinion that the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent-contemnor is liable to be accepted. The respondent-contemnor is a young person having two minor children and looking to the background of his family, a lenient view is taken in the matter," the Court remarked.
GSTIN Linking Cannot Be Denied Merely For Providing Information In Wrong Form: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: A.H. Marble Crafts, Through Proprietor Mohammad Afzal v. Commissioner Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 249
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) link cannot be denied merely for providing information in the wrong form.
The division bench, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur, has observed that absolute hyper-technical ground cannot be considered valid so as to deny the petitioner the opportunity to link the GSTIN of his father's firm with the new GSTIN number of the firm.
Case Title: Gaytri and Another v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 250
The Rajasthan High Court, while disposing of a petition filed for protection of life and personal liberty by a widowed woman and a widower man staying together in a live-in relationship, observed that the petitioners have a constitutional right to privacy, liberty and choice.
The single bench of Justice Birendra Kumar ordered the Superintendent of Police, along with other authorities, to ensure the protection of life and personal liberty of the petitioners. The Court observed that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one's hands and that in case there is an allegation of violation of law by the aggrieved person then legal recourse must be adopted, which recourse can never be at the whim of anyone.
Case Title: M/s Shree Ram Junawa Industries v. M/s Rounak Steels
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 251
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that if an Arbitral Tribunal had principally decided to pass the award on a day when all the members of the Arbitral Tribunal were present, merely because the detailed award was passed on the day when one of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal was not alive, and was thus signed by only two members, it cannot be said that the award was contrary to Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that the principles of res judicata also apply between two stages of the same litigation. Thus, it ruled that since the award debtor had failed to make payment of 75% of the award amount, passed under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), within the stipulated time granted by the High Court, the appeal filed by the award debtor under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the Commercial Court stood dismissed. Therefore, the challenge made by the award debtor against the execution proceedings initiated by the award holder were barred by res judicata.
Case Title: Kshama Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 252
The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, while disposing of a writ petition filed by a married woman claiming compassionate appointment upon her father's death, has held her to be entitled to claim such appointment, since the application for compassionate appointment was made by her while she was still unmarried.
The single bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition and passed an order directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment along with consequential benefits within a period of three months.
"This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed; for the reasons, firstly, admittedly, at the time of submitting the application for compassionate appointment the petitioner was unmarried; secondly, the objection raised by the respondents regarding marriage of the petitioner is not sustainable as the petitioner solemnized marriage after one year of submitting the application for compassionate appointment."
Case Title: Pooja Agarwal v. Commissioner of Income Tax-1
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 253
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is the last fact-finding authority and is bound to follow the directions issued by the High Court in pith and substance.
The division bench headed by Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has held that the direction of the High Court in remanding the matter to the Tribunal was to verify the distance of the land from the outskirts of the city and, if necessary, take the help of the Revenue Authority. The ITAT, without taking help from the Revenue Authority, simply remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for the purposes of recording its finding with regard to the distance of the land in question from the outskirts of the city of Jaipur. It was completely in derogation of the spirit of the order of the High Court.
Case title: Suraj v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 254
Observing that despite Supreme Court guidelines, and legal and executive reforms, there is no significant improvement in the state of the under-trials, the Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to an NDPS accused in view of his over 6 years' incarceration as an under-trial.
"This Court is anxious over the fact that jails debilitate the under-trial prisoners and if after the long wait, the accused is ultimately acquitted, then how would the long years spent by the under-trial in custody be restored to him/her/them...The issue of a large number of under-trial prisoners and their poor living conditions has been standing stubborn against the otherwise incandescent face of our democracy," the bench of Justice Farjand Ali remarked.
Case title: The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another v. Sangeeta Varhat and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 255
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a decree of divorce is essential for consideration of candidature for appointment against the quota of divorcees and that exemption from presenting such a decree cannot be sought on the ground of customs prevalent in a particular community.
With this, the bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur clarified that the claim of divorce on the basis of social practice in public recruitment is not valid and that a decree of divorce is mandatory for a woman who wishes to avail the benefit of the quota reserved for divorced women in government service.
Case title: Hemendra Puri v. Jai Narayan Vyas University and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 256
The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has observed that a child who was born from the second wife of the deceased employee is eligible for a compassionate appointment.
To arrive at the conclusion, the bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur relied upon the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the case of Mukesh Kumar vs Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 wherein it was observed that a compassionate appointment policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate.
Immature Act Of Uncontrolled Emotions: Rajasthan HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Minor's Lover
Case Title: Tarun Vaishnav v. State of Rajasthan and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the FIR registered against a 22-year old man under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for impregnating a 16-year old girl, leading to delivery of a child.
A single bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta noted that the minor and the accused were lovers and the sexual acts were consensual in nature. It observed,
"This Court cannot and does not accord any approval or sanction to the sexual act of petitioner with the prosecutrix but then, it is a hard reality that their love affair has traversed beyond the legal and moral bounds, consequence whereof has begotten a child...The mistake or blunder which otherwise constitutes an offence has been committed due to immature act and uncontrolled emotions of two persons, out of whom, one is still a minor."
Case Title: Madhu Saini and Others v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 258
The Jaipur bench of Rajasthan High Court recently declined to regularise the admissions of the postgraduate dental students, who were admitted by a Kota college in 2017 without even having secured the admissions through the NEET PG process.
The division bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, however, said the candidates would be at liberty to proceed against the college to get a compensation of Rs 10 Lakh in accordance with the directions issued earlier by a single bench.
The division bench said time has come where such backdoor entries in educational institutions should be stopped and discouraged, while imposing a cost of Rs 25 Lakh on Daswani Dental College which had granted admission in the MDS Course.
"To permit any backdoor entry to any educational institution would be de hors the Rules and Regulations. The respondent-College was well aware of the fact that admissions cannot be granted to the appellants contrary to the regulations, even then, the College permitted the appellants to continue their studies in-spite of the directions by the Dental Medical Council to discharge the appellants. Such an intentional and deliberate violation of the Regulations by the respondent-College while granting admissions to the appellants in the academic year-2017 cannot be condoned."
