| 1 |
CW / 4420 / 2026 (HIMMATA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/09/2026
The petitioner challenged the notification naming the new revenue village “Jadam Nagar”, alleging violation of the circular dated 20.08.2009 prohibiting names based on a person, religion, caste or sub-caste. HELD-The Court found no violation of the circular and rejected as unjustified the alleged link with the former Sarpanch’s brother. The notification was upheld and the writ petition dismissed. |
| 2 |
CW / 20557 / 2026 (HARISH KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2026
Petitioners challenged the municipal reservation lottery. HELD- Declaration and publication of the election programme marked commencement of the election process, attracting the constitutional bar under Article 243-ZG against judicial interference in municipal elections. The writ petitions challenging the reservation process were dismissed without adjudication on the merits of the reservation dispute. |
| 3 |
CW / 18956 / 2019 (BANWARI LAL JHURIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/08/2026
Petitioners challenged enhanced mining demands. HELD-Substantial enhancement of alleged illegal excavation and financial liability without disclosure of audit material, calculations and methodology, or a meaningful opportunity to contest the revised assessment, violated natural justice. The demand notices were quashed; the merits of illegal excavation and correctness of quantities were left open for fresh proceedings in accordance with law. |
| 4 |
CW / 15836 / 2021 (TARA RANI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/08/2026
Petitioners sought protection against demolition/dispossession for road widening under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 and Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. HELD-The Master Plan may be implemented in public interest, but not without notice, hearing and reasoned orders. If valid title is established and the land is required, compensation or alternative land must be considered. Authorities may proceed after deciding objections; writ petitions disposed of. |
| 5 |
CMA / 2506 / 2026 (SHRI VISHWAKARMA JANGID SAMAJ SAMITI, PALI VS RAMCHANDRA PIDWA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/08/2026
Appellant challenged the Trial Court’s order transferring the Society’s management, properties and records to the ADM under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. HELD-An interim injunction must preserve the existing position, not create a new one or indirectly grant mandatory/receivership relief. The Trial Court could not displace existing management without a prayer or exceptional circumstances warranting Order XL intervention. CMA-2032/2026 allowed; CMA-2506/2026 dismissed. |
| 6 |
CW / 16753 / 2026 (SAACHI MINOCHA VS NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/08/2026
Petitioner sought quashing of her debarment from the VI Semester examination for shortage of attendance. HELD-Rule 1.7(D) of the NLU Jodhpur Rules of Examination mandates that a student unable to take the end-term examination on medical grounds shall be allowed to appear in the repeat examination as a first attempt. The Rule prescribes neither a one-time limit nor a separate minimum-attendance condition; such restrictions could not be imported into the Rule. Writ petition allowed. |
| 7 |
CMA / 1748 / 2024 (LRS OF LATE SMT. RASAL KANWAR VS LRS OF LATE LAXMAN SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/08/2026
Petitioners sought initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging that Ex.A34, an adoption deed, was forged. HELD- Section 340 requires a reasonable foundation for the alleged offence and expediency in the interests of justice. Though pendency of the substantive suit is not an absolute bar, no exceptional circumstances warranted criminal proceedings before adjudication of the document’s genuineness. The appeal was dismissed; the issue was left open for the trial Court. |
| 8 |
CW / 12432 / 2026 (AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/08/2026
Petitioner-Bank challenged police charges demanded for Section 14 SARFAESI assistance under the 03.02.2026 executive circular. HELD- the State may levy such charges, but Sections 46 and 2(m) of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 require rates to be prescribed by Rules. Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 2008 governs; an executive circular cannot override or amend it. Until Rule 10 is lawfully amended, demands exceeding its rates are without authority of law and stand quashed. |
| 9 |
CW / 9549 / 2026 (MADNA RAM VS RESERVE BANK OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/08/2026
Petitioners sought quashing of freezing of bank accounts in cyber-fraud cases for want of prior notice. HELD- Freezing is a preventive measure to preserve suspected proceeds; given the speed of cyber fraud, prior notice may defeat its purpose. The restraint must remain proportionate and subject to periodic review under the SOP. Writ petitions without exhausting prescribed remedies were premature; liberty was granted to approach afresh in exceptional cases. The petitions were disposed of. |
| 10 |
CW / 24714 / 2025 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS BHANWAR LAL JAIN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/08/2026
Petitioner-State sought quashing of the Permanent Lok Adalat’s award granting service benefits from initial appointment. HELD-Its jurisdiction is confined to public utility services under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. “Any party to a dispute” in Section 22C must be read within that framework and does not confer unrestricted jurisdiction. A service-benefit dispute falls outside Section 22A(b); hence the award was without jurisdiction and was quashed. |
| 11 |
CW / 10655 / 2026 (SHAITAN SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/08/2026
Petitioner sought cancellation of Respondent No.5’s mining lease, alleging violation of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 through a partnership arrangement. HELD- Even if Rule 27 was violated, a person who is neither the lessee nor licencee does not thereby acquire an enforceable right to seek cancellation. As the grievance arose from a contractual arrangement involving disputed facts, the writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed. |
| 12 |
CW / 12429 / 2015 (KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/07/2026
Petitioner-Bank sought quashing of the seizure and auction of its hypothecated vehicle for recovery of the owner’s motor vehicle dues. HELD- Section 13-A permits attachment and sale of the movable property of the person liable, not merely the vehicle against which dues arose. Mere hypothecation, without actual possession or overriding statutory priority, did not defeat recovery; separate notice to the financier was not a statutory precondition. Writ dismissed. |
| 13 |
CMA / 2252 / 2026 (BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. VS M/S RAJ SOLUTIONS (INDIA) LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/07/2026
Appellant-BSNL sought restoration of its Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court, Udaipur. HELD- Party autonomy required Clauses 17(3) and 19 to be harmoniously construed: Jaipur was the place for conducting arbitration, while Udaipur was expressly chosen as the jurisdictional forum. Conducting arbitration at Jaipur did not make it the juridical seat or override Clause 19. Appeal allowed; application restored. |
| 14 |
CW / 16603 / 2025 (SMT. HARU VS GAINARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/06/2026
Petitioner sought quashing of the Board of Revenue’s order remanding her application under Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for a way through respondents’ land. HELD-Rule 69 mandates inviting and considering objections to the site-inspection report. Mere notice of inspection is insufficient. Non-compliance violates natural justice and constitutes material irregularity under Section 230, justifying revisional interference. Writ dismissed; matter remanded to SDO. |
| 15 |
CW / 24552 / 2025 (SATYANARAYAN SINGH RAJPUROHIT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/06/2026
Petitioner sought quashing of the notification dated 13.12.2025 creating Revenue Village “Khichan Vistar”, alleging breach of norms, mala fide and political influence. HELD-Creation of a revenue village u/Sec16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is an administrative decision. Distance criterion was satisfied; Khasra adjacency did not invalidate distance findings. No mala fide, colourable exercise or statutory violation was proved. Writ dismissed; pending applications disposed of. |
| 16 |
CRLA / 687 / 2012 (STATE VS UGMA AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/08/2025
Appellant-State sought reversal of acquittal of five accused under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. HELD-PW-23 and PW-24 were not eyewitnesses; PW-7 and PW-8 turned hostile, with material contradictions regarding the occurrence, motive and place. The Trial Court’s acquittal was a legally plausible view, without perversity warranting appellate interference. Appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed of. |
