| 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 |
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. |
| 3 |
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. |
| 4 |
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. |
| 5 |
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. |
| 6 |
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. |
| 7 |
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. |
| 8 |
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. |
| 9 |
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 |
| 10 |
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. |
| 11 |
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. |
| 12 |
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. |
