| 1 | CW / 3103 / 2007 (BALRAM VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/10/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the dismissal order for alleged unauthorized absence from duty. HELD- The inquiry substantially complied with Rule 16 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules, 1958. Past absences did not constitute double jeopardy, as dismissal rested on the separately charged ten-day absence. The medical explanation remained unsubstantiated, and no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out. |
| 2 | CW / 9613 / 2010 (SHANTI LAL JAIN VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2026 The petitioner sought to set aside his dismissal from service for financial irregularities on grounds of non-supply of documents and subsequent criminal acquittal. HELD-Non-supply of documents vitiates disciplinary proceedings only if demonstrable prejudice is established. Subsequent criminal acquittal and repayment do not automatically erase independently established misconduct. The findings being evidence-based and dismissal not shockingly disproportionate, the writ petition was dismissed. |
| 3 | CW / 8252 / 2015 (AVINASH BHATNAGAR VS RSRTC AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2026 Whether the petitioner could claim compassionate appointment as an Assistant Traffic Inspector after accepting appointment as a Conductor, without objection, and joining service.HELD-Once the petitioner accepted and joined the post offered on compassionate grounds, his right to such appointment stood exercised. His qualifications and the subsequent restoration of the higher post could not entitle him to a second consideration. The writ petition was dismissed. |
| 4 | SOSA / 1733 / 2026 (MONU MOHAMMED VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2026 The appellants sought suspension of sentence pending appeal, raising a plea of private defence. HELD-Whether the force used exceeded permissible limits must be assessed in the context of imminent danger, the circumstances of the occurrence and the injuries sustained, not the ultimate consequence alone. The arguable issues warranted reappraisal in appeal; the sentences were suspended. |
| 5 | CRLA / 613 / 1996 (STATE VS BASANT KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the acquittal of a public servant for offences under Sections 409, 477-A, 467, 468 and 471 IPC due to absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. HELD-Sanction under Section 197 CrPC depends on the connection between the alleged act and official duty. An acquittal warrants interference only upon material legal error, perversity or patent illegality. The State failed to establish such grounds; the appeal was dismissed. |
| 6 | STR / 21 / 2019 (ASSITANT COMMISSIONER (ANTI EVASION) COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, SRI GANGANAGAR VS M/S KHANDELIYA UDHYOG PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/10/2026 Whether investments in plant and machinery of two industrial units under the same ownership could be clubbed to determine eligibility for concessional tax treatment. HELD-The notification prohibits clubbing investments in different enterprises under the same ownership. As the Revenue failed to establish common business interests, funding or financial flow-back between the units, common ownership alone could not justify clubbing. The six revision petitions were dismissed. |
| 7 | CRLA / 767 / 1999 (STATE VS MAHENDRA SINGH AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the acquittal for cheating by personation, cheating and criminal conspiracy in recruitment. HELD-Documentary discrepancies and suspicion cannot prove impersonation. The prosecution must establish who appeared in the examination and the accused’s connection with the alleged fraud. As the trial court’s view was reasonably possible, the appeal was dismissed. |
| 8 | CW / 17036 / 2026 (LAL CHAND BALAI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought to set aside his suspension on the ground that the order was issued by an incompetent authority despite the earlier quashing of his suspension. HELD-The Board of Directors was competent to suspend the petitioner under the applicable Regulations. As the Board itself had taken the decision, its communication by the Managing Director did not render the order invalid. No jurisdictional error or mala fides were established; the writ petition was dismissed. |
| 9 | CRLR / 1603 / 2026 (ISHWAR SINGH @ HARIOM SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought transfer from Central Jail, Bharatpur, to a prison nearer his home district. HELD- A prisoner's convenience cannot override security requirements; however, family hardship and access to legal counsel deserve consideration where a suitable alternative exists. Considering the peculiar circumstances, transfer to District Jail, Bhilwara, was directed without affecting the pending trial. |
| 10 | CW / 19612 / 2026 (VINOD KUMAR VS RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought to claim three long-jump attempts and a fresh Physical Efficiency Test in police recruitment. HELD- An earlier executive instruction cannot confer a perpetual substantive right after statutory rules intervene and the competent authority prescribes the recruitment procedure. In the absence of a prescribed entitlement or established procedural irregularity, adverse weather, disputed measurement or alleged foul did not warrant a fresh test. The writ petitions were dismissed. |
| 11 | CMA / 2689 / 2026 (SMT. BALJEET KAUR VS SMT. GODAVARI) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, citing her counsel’s death as the cause of absence. HELD-The earlier Order IX Rule 7 application, dismissed for non-prosecution without adjudication on merits, was not conclusive. The petitioner’s absence was bona fide, and she could not be penalized for counsel’s default. The ex-parte decree was set aside qua her, and the suit restored for decision on merits. |
| 12 | CRLMB / 11335 / 2025 (SHAKOOR KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 Peti.sought bail u/sec 483 BNSS in an NDPS case involving 210 kg of poppy straw, challenging conscious possession, the search officer’s authority, communication of grounds of arrest & prolonged incarceration. HELD-Bail was denied as the material prima facie indicated conscious possession, the sec 42 challenge and plea of non-communication were unsupported by the record, & the twin conditions u/Sec 37 NDPS Act remained unsatisfied; custody alone could not override the statutory bar. |
| 13 | CRLMP / 8827 / 2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings for forgery and use of a forged medical certificate. HELD- Investigative material casting serious doubt on the certificate's genuineness and the circumstances of its procurement and use raised triable issues regarding the petitioner's knowledge or reason to believe it was forged. The proceedings could not be terminated at the threshold. |
| 14 | CRLR / 1070 / 2023 (KALU RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the framing of a charge under Section 307 IPC based on a subsequent medical opinion describing an injury as dangerous to life. HELD-The medical classification of an injury cannot substitute for the requisite intention or knowledge to commit murder. As the material, even if accepted at face value, disclosed no sufficient factual basis for inferring such mens rea, the Section 307 IPC charge was quashed; the remaining charges were maintained. |
| 15 | CRLA / 413 / 1999 (STATE VS MANGILAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the acquittal for voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt. HELD-Minor discrepancies do not warrant acquittal when the core prosecution case remains intact. Evidence must be assessed cumulatively. The acquittal under Section 325 IPC was set aside and conviction recorded, while acquittal under Section 323 IPC was maintained. The accused was released on probation. |
| 16 | CW / 21823 / 2026 (BUDH DAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge Section 24(iii) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.HELD-The provision does not violate Articles 14 and 21. Cognizance and framing of charges for offences punishable with imprisonment of five years or more provide objective judicial safeguards, rationally linked to curbing criminalization of local democracy. Sections 24(i) and 24(iii) operate at distinct stages and are not discriminatory. |
| 17 | CMA / 1721 / 2025 (THE CHIEF ENGINEER (WEST) VS M/S. MITHARWAL BROTHERS) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2026 The appellants sought to challenge the rejection of their objections to an arbitral award directing refund of contractual deductions with interest. HELD-Interference under Section 37 is confined to the grounds available under Section 34. A plausible interpretation of the contract and evidence cannot be substituted merely because another view is possible. As no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error was established, the appeal was dismissed. |
| 18 | SAW / 677 / 2023 (INDER SINGH RAJPUROHIT VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the grant of permission for a competing petrol outlet on grounds of alleged violation of governmental guidelines, without establishing infringement of any vested or legal right. HELD- Mere commercial rivalry or consequential business prejudice does not confer locus standi under Article 226. Absent infringement of a legally protected right, the rival competitor is not an aggrieved person and the writ petition is not maintainable. |
| 19 | ITA / 183 / 2014 (C.I.T.-UDAIPUR VS M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2026 Whether power generation qualified for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) and revision of the assessment was justified under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. HELD-Additional depreciation was allowable on qualifying new plant and machinery. Revision under Section 263 requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. As neither condition was established, the ITAT rightly set aside the revisional order. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed. |
| 20 | CW / 1740 / 2024 (UPENDRA KAPOOR VS SMT. VANDANA) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the impleadment of subsequent purchasers in pending eviction proceedings. HELD- Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, purchasers acquiring an interest during pending proceedings may be impleaded; however, impleadment does not automatically transfer the original landlord’s personal necessity or establish entitlement to eviction. The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the eviction grounds for independent adjudication |
| 21 | CRLMA / 386 / 2026 (GANGA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/09/2026 The petitioner sought recall of an order disposing of his FIR-quashing petition on the premise that cognizance had been taken. HELD- Recall was warranted as the order rested on a factual premise appearing inconsistent with the trial court’s order-sheet, and the substantive grounds had never been adjudicated. The original petition was restored for decision on merits. |
| 22 | CRLAS / 1107 / 2019 (BHERA RAM @ BHERU LAL VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/09/2026 The appellants sought the benefit of probation instead of substantive imprisonment. HELD-Considering the appellants’ first-offender status, absence of previous convictions, the 2014 occurrence, acquittal on graver charges and prolonged proceedings, the Court granted probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The convictions and fine remained intact. |
| 23 | CRLAD / 104 / 2023 (SURENDRA KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/09/2026 The petitioner sought renewal of his passport despite a conviction under Section 302 IPC and a pending criminal appeal. HELD- Section 6(2) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 operates independently of Section 6(2)(f). The exemption for pending criminal proceedings cannot be extended to a qualifying conviction involving moral turpitude in the absence of a corresponding relaxation. The application was dismissed. |
| 24 | CMA / 3400 / 2024 (SARASWATI VS AMIT) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/09/2026 Whether a divorce decree could be set aside following the parties’ voluntary reconciliation during appeal. HELD-The Court held that subsequent events, voluntary settlement and unequivocal consent “cannot be ignored while exercising appellate jurisdiction”. Considering the welfare of the minor girl and the parties’ wish to restore their matrimonial relationship, the Court set aside the decree and restored the marriage as if the decree had not intervened. |
| 25 | CW / 11160 / 2025 (JAKHAR TRAVELS VS BHANWAR LAL CHOUDHARY) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/09/2026 Whether a non-party could appeal against an injunction affecting his claimed interest in the property, and whether a rent agreement alone established possession. HELD-The execution of such an agreement and actual delivery of possession are two distinct factual aspects. Finding no patent illegality, jurisdictional transgression or manifest perversity, the Court dismissed the writ under Article 227, leaving title and tenancy questions open for adjudication by the competent forum. |
| 26 | SAW / 1800 / 2025 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS RAJENDRA SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/09/2026 The petitioner challenged the denial of appointment as a Primary School Teacher despite acquittal in a criminal case involving offences of moral turpitude. HELD-The employer must assess the relevant facts and antecedents. As no evidence linked the petitioner to the alleged offences, the acquittal was for lack of evidence, not reasonable doubt. The direction to issue appointment was upheld. |
| 27 | CW / 17014 / 2026 (RIDDHAM DEORA VS THE UNIION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/08/2026 Minor sought passport for study abroad without his divorced father’s consent. HELD-Right to travel abroad forms part of Article 21. A passport cannot be refused mechanically merely because the father’s consent or a specific custody order is absent. Under Annexure-C of Schedule III to the Passport Rules, 1980, a passport may be issued without both parents’ consent upon submission of the prescribed affidavit. Writ petition allowed; passport directed to be issued forthwith. |
| 28 | CMA / 2558 / 2012 (BHOMA RAM AND ORS. VS BHANWAR SINGH AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/07/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the remand of a civil suit after closure of the plaintiffs’ evidence. HELD-Mere availability of several hearing dates does not constitute an effective opportunity to lead evidence. Considering the plaintiffs’ earlier efforts, the procedural delays and the defendant’s right to lead evidence, the limited remand with costs and strict timelines was upheld. The appeal was dismissed. |
| 29 | CSA / 36 / 2026 (URJARAM VS RIKA RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/07/2026 The appellants sought to challenge the concurrent decrees for specific performance on grounds of errors in factual findings and appreciation of evidence.HELD- Section 100 CPC does not permit reappreciation of evidence merely to substitute one possible view for another. Interference with concurrent findings requires a substantial question of law or a legally recognised ground, such as perversity or manifest illegality. None was established; the second appeal was dismissed. |
| 30 | CW / 6442 / 2016 (BHARAT KUMAR AND ANR VS SHYAM SUNDER SOLANKI AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/07/2026 The petitioners sought eviction to start an independent business dealing in stitching machines, electronic goods and gifts. HELD-Working in a family business does not establish suitable independent commercial accommodation or negate bona fide need. A landlord need not remain unemployed during litigation. The tribunals’ erroneous approach warranted interference under Article 227, and both impugned orders were set aside. |
| 1 | CW / 17704 / 2026 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DR. RUPENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, S/O SHRI NAND KISHOR SHARMA) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2026 Whether suspension under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, could be quashed for non-service of a charge-sheet within three months. HELD-Suspension is permissible when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. Non-service of a charge-sheet within three months does not automatically invalidate suspension. The Tribunal’s order, quashing suspension on this ground despite the premature challenge, was set aside and the suspension revived. |
| 2 | CRLMP / 6557 / 2024 (LIYAKAT ALI S/O NOOR MOHAMMED VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/09/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the cognizance and revisional orders, challenging the premature assessment of medical evidence, causation of death and intention. HELD-At the cognizance stage, only a prima facie case is to be examined; meticulous appreciation of evidence and conclusions on the nature of the offence are premature. Both orders were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, leaving the merits open. |
| 3 | CRLMP / 5380 / 2024 (AMAR SINGH S/O SHRIRAM MEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2026 Whether the petitioner was entitled to a cloned copy of CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution. HELD-Section 207 CrPC mandates supply of electronic records relied upon by the prosecution. Cloned copies must ordinarily be furnished to ensure a fair trial under Article 21. The impugned order was unsustainable in law and was quashed and set aside, subject to safeguards protecting privacy and identity. |
| 4 | CW / 13376 / 2020 (SAFIYA KHAN S/O LATE SHRI MISHRIYA VS SHAKOOR KHAN SON OF LATE SHRI MISHRIYA) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2026 The petitioner sought permission to exhibit a duly stamped but unregistered instrument in a partition suit. HELD-Objections other than deficiency of stamp duty may be deferred until final judgment. The instrument was permitted to be exhibited, but its admissibility for want of registration remained open for the trial court to decide on merits. The order refusing exhibition was set aside. |
| 5 | CW / 6 / 2026 (SUBE SINGH YADAV SON OF SHRI SANWAT SINGH YADAV VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/08/2026 Petitioners challenged transfer orders on grounds of illegality and hardship. HELD-No employee has a vested right to a particular posting, but transfer power remains reviewable for breach of mandatory statutory provisions, mala fides, extraneous considerations or patent arbitrariness. The batch was disposed of with directions for time-bound consideration of representations, grievance committees, formulation of a State transfer policy and steps to improve RCSAT’s functioning. |
| 6 | SAW / 283 / 2025 (RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS ANIRUDDH SHARMA S/O NARENDRA KUMAR SHARMA) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/08/2026 The respondent sought implementation of his approved promotion, which was kept in abeyance. HELD-The abeyance order was unsustainable for want of lawful authority, violation of natural justice and reliance on reasons not recorded in the order. The Court upheld the promotion under the disability quota and directed consideration of the competing claim through a supernumerary post, if necessary, without disturbing the respondent’s promotion or seniority. |
| 7 | CMA / 2048 / 2026 (SATYA NARAIN TAK SON OF LATE MOHAN LAL TAK VS OPTIC GALAXY,) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/08/2026 Appellant challenged return of plaint in a recovery suit arising from a proposed partnership. HELD-At the threshold, the plaint must be read as a whole and its averments assumed true. Whether the alleged partnership existed and its terms were matters for trial. A refund claim for money advanced towards a proposed partnership may arise out of a partnership arrangement under Section 2(1)(c)(xv) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Impugned order set aside; suit restored, merits left open. |
| 8 | CRLMP / 1188 / 2026 (SHUBHAM GURJAR S/O SHRI GUMAN SINGH, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/08/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of the second FIR under Section 528 BNSS, alleging duplication of the first FIR. HELD-A second FIR is ordinarily impermissible for the same occurrence, but may proceed where it discloses a distinct transaction or wider conspiracy with a separate factual foundation. As the first FIR concerned an individual alleged forged FMGE certificate and the second an alleged wider network, the Court dismissed the petition, leaving guilt to trial. |
| 9 | CW / 15782 / 2025 (BUDDALAL VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/08/2026 Petitioners challenged rejection of objections under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, to a rest area near Sariska Tiger Reserve. HELD-The authority must meaningfully consider environmental restrictions and alternative sites. “Public utility” does not override statutory restrictions. The order and acquisition were quashed only insofar as petitioners’ land was concerned; lawful acquisition at an alternative site remained open. |
| 10 | SAW / 723 / 2021 (SUDESH AGRAWAL DAUGHTER OF LATE SH. BADRI PRASAD AGRAWAL VS THE SECRETARY PRIMARY EDUCATION) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/08/2026 Whether delay and laches barred a challenge to termination despite alleged violation of Article 311 and Rule 86(3) of the RSR. HELD-Knowledge of the termination in 2013 crystallised the cause of action; RTI documents obtained in 2019 did not furnish a fresh cause of action, nor did repeated representations salvage delay. Even an order alleged to be void or passed in breach of natural justice must be assailed within a reasonable time. Appeal dismissed without adjudicating merits. |
Rajasthan High Court Principal Seat Jodhpur
e-Services Helpline: 9414056204
hc-rj[at]nic[dot]in
0291-2888500-04
Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur
e-Services Helpline: 7023103127
hcjaipur-rj[at]nic[dot]in
0141-2227124
