| 1 | CMA / 88 / 2024 (AMARBHAW POWER PRIVATE LIMITED VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/01/2026 The appellant sought recovery of the amount levied as pre-payment charges and declaration that the relevant clause in the loan agreement was illegal. HELD- that pre-payment charges were levied strictly in terms of the contractual stipulation. The Code of Bank’s Commitment for MSMEs is voluntary and cannot override express contractual terms, having accepted the agreement, the borrower is bound by it and estopped from disputing the charges, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. |
| 2 | CRLR / 1100 / 2025 (RADHAKISHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/01/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the order framing charge under Section 307 IPC. HELD- that to attract Section 307 IPC there must be prima facie intention or knowledge to cause death. Blunt injury without use of deadly weapon or conduct indicating homicidal intent is insufficient. The charge under Section 307 IPC was quashed, charges under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 354 IPC were maintained, the case was transferred to the Magistrate, and pending applications were disposed of. |
| 3 | CRLA / 547 / 1996 (BABU LAL AND ANS VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2026 The appellants sought setting aside of the judgment and acquittal from offences under Sections 324, 149, 147 and 452 IPC. HELD- the conviction was justified on the basis of prosecution and medical evidence. however, the trial court erred in denying probation without recording special reasons under Section 361 CrPC. Considering the age of the case, the substantive sentences were reduced to the period already undergone, default fine sentences were maintained, and the appeals were disposed of. |
| 4 | CRLW / 1292 / 2025 (RAJU RAM CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2026 The petitioner sought expunction of adverse and stigmatic remarks recorded against him in the orders. HELD- that remarks affecting reputation or service cannot be made without granting opportunity of hearing, such observations were unnecessary, exceeded the limited jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the adverse remarks were expunged, while the operative directions and criminal proceedings were left unaffected, and the writ petition was allowed. |
| 5 | CRLA / 12 / 1995 (RUPA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/01/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the judgment convicting him under Section 306 IPC and prayed for acquittal. HELD- that to prove abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intentional aid under Section 107 IPC. Mere allegations, suspicion, or family discord cannot constitute abetment. As the prosecution failed to prove these essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted. |
| 6 | CW / 303 / 2016 (MANOHAR SINGH VS STATE and ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/01/2026 The petitioners challenged the cancellation of a concluded auction and sought restoration of allotment. HELD- that once an auction is completed and bidders are declared successful, cancellation cannot be mechanical. Such action must disclose valid reasons and comply with principles of natural justice. Discretion under auction conditions is not absolute and must conform to Articles 14 and 300-A. As cancellation was without reasons or hearing, orders were quashed, allotments restored. |
| 7 | SAW / 727 / 2025 (ABHISHEK JAIN VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/01/2026 The appellant sought quashing of the judgment dated 17.04.2025 and a direction for appointment to the post of Pharmacist. HELD- that delays in issuance of registration for an already acquired qualification cannot prejudice a candidate when such delay is attributable to the authority, legitimate expectation stands violated. The impugned judgment was quashed, appointment was directed with notional benefits, the special appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of. |
| 8 | CRLAD / 41 / 2023 (MANOJ VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/01/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the judgment dated 14.11.2022 and acquittal from offences under Sections 376(2), 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. HELD- that the testimony of the minor victim was natural, cogent and trustworthy, duly corroborated by medical evidence; statutory presumptions under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act and Section 29 of the POCSO Act remained unrebutted; incestuous sexual assault by a father warranted punishment. Criminal appeal was dismissed. |
| 9 | SAW / 1607 / 2025 (SANJEEV KUMAR MALIK VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/01/2026 The appellant sought quashing of the suspension order passed on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings despite completion of inquiry. HELD- that suspension invoked after conclusion of inquiry is ex facie untenable. Mere absence of final order does not amount to pendency so as to justify suspension, the action reflected arbitrariness and non-application of mind. Accordingly, operation and effect of the suspension order were stayed till final adjudication of the writ petition. |
| 10 | SAW / 1560 / 2025 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS RAJASTHAN VEHICLE FITNESS CENTER NOKHA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/01/2026 The appellants challenged the Single Judge’s order & sought enforcement of Rule 62(1)(b) of the CMV Rules, 1989 for issuing fitness certificates only through Automated Testing Stations. HELD- Appeal disposed of while clarifying the order i.e. - the ATS system is mandatory, existing LOA holders under FIJA-2018 may operate only till an ATS becomes functional in the district, no further extensions can be granted, ATS must be fully implemented, security deposit condition stands. |
| 11 | CMA / 1319 / 2025 (AYASHA CHOUHAN VS WASEEM KHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/01/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the Family Court judgment and a decree declaring dissolution of marriage. HELD- under Sunni Muslim law, Talaq-ul-Hasan and Mubarat are valid modes of divorce. Where talaq is admitted, presence of witnesses is not mandatory. The Family Court has jurisdiction u/sec 7 of the Family Courts Act to recognize such dissolution. The impugned judgment was set aside, decree of divorce was granted, guidelines were issued, and the appeal was disposed of. |
| 12 | CRLW / 3130 / 2025 (KHARTARAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/01/2026 The petitioner sought waiver of the condition of furnishing two sureties for release on fourth parole and prayed for release on personal bond. HELD- that insistence on surety from an indigent prisoner is arbitrary and renders parole illusory. Discretion under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 must advance reformative and humanitarian objects under Articles 14 and 21, the surety condition was waived. With these observations and directions, writ petition is allowed. |
| 13 | CW / 3118 / 2025 (ANKIT KUMAR MEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/01/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of notifications including Scheduled Area villages within municipal limits. HELD- paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule is exclusionary and not a condition precedent; unless the Governor issues a notification excluding or modifying its application, State law continues to operate in Scheduled Areas. The Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 validly applied, inclusion within municipal limits was constitutionally permissible, and the writ petitions were dismissed. |
| 14 | CW / 3331 / 2017 (DUDHU GRAM SEVA SAH. SMITI., VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/12/2025 The petitioners sought quashing of RBI circulars dated 14.11.2016 restraining District Central Co-operative Banks and PACS from dealing with specified bank notes. HELD - notification under Section 26(2). The notification did not confer an absolute right. Differential treatment was based on intelligible differentia. No violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 300-A was found. Petitions dismissed. |
| 15 | CW / 17703 / 2025 (SURESH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/12/2025 The petitioners sought quashing of land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for a Forward Composite Aviation Base. HELD- the statutory requirements including Social Impact Assessment and public hearing were complied with. No violation of Sections 5, 7, 11, 12, 15 or 19 was found. As the acquisition was for national importance, interference was declined. The writ petition was dismissed. |
| 16 | CW / 11031 / 2018 (S. N. DERASHRI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/12/2025 The petitioner sought grant of pension from the date of compulsory retirement with interest, counting prior advocacy practice towards qualifying service and quashing of orders rejecting the claim. HELD-that pension eligibility requires completion of minimum qualifying service under Rule 54(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996; executive orders do not create entitlement, the claim is barred by res judicata, and the writ petition was dismissed accordingly. |
| 1 | CW / 17332 / 2023 (M/S SHANKER STEEL SUPPLIER VS M/S RAMPUR ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/01/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the order rejecting its application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and permission to amend the plaint. HELD- Pleadings on jurisdiction, valuation, limitation and cause of action are foundational and necessary; rejection merely on the ground of delay is unsustainable when evidence is incomplete. The impugned order was set aside, amendment was allowed with costs, the suit was directed to proceed, and all pending applications stood disposed of. |
| 2 | CMA / 5868 / 2019 (DEVKRISHNA S/O LATE PRABHA DEVI W/O GHISARAM VS KALURAM S/O TRILOKCHAND) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/01/2026 The appellants sought setting aside of the order rejecting their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and quashing of the ex-parte decree. HELD- that service based on refusal is not a mere formality, under Order V Rules 17 and 19 CPC the Process Server must be examined, failing which service becomes doubtful and proceeding ex-parte is unsafe. As mandatory procedure was not followed, the impugned order and ex-parte decree were quashed and the matter was remitted for decision on merits. |
| 3 | CRLMB / 12106 / 2025 (SANJAY SAXENA S/O SHRI UMA SHANKAR SAXENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/01/2026 The petitioner sought grant of bail after rejection by the State Consumer Commission under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. HELD- that no statutory appeal lays against rejection of bail and the bar under Section 73 applies only to appeals, not to bail. If bail application is rejected by commissioner the concerned session court can decide the bail application u/s 483 BNSS. Considering custody and maximum punishment of three years, bail was granted. |
| 4 | CW / 11417 / 2008 (PEOPLES WATCH RAJASTHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/01/2026 The petitioner sought directions to the State to provide adequate washing material, drinking water and water for washing clothes to prisoners in Rajasthan jails. HELD- that hygiene, sanitation and access to water are part of the right to live with dignity; existing facilities were inadequate. The State was directed to ensure proper water and hygiene facilities, conduct jail inspections, constitute grievance redressal committees, and secure humane prison conditions. |
| 5 | SAW / 59 / 2023 (SMT. PREM DEVI D/O LATE RADHESHYAM SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the judgment dismissing her writ petition and declaration of khatedari rights over the land. HELD- that the appeal was filed without locus, the alleged power of attorney was invalid, and the land stood recorded as forest land; the special appeal was an abuse of process and was dismissed with costs, while the connected writ petitions relating to mining lease and industrial allotment were allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of. |
| 6 | CW / 5534 / 2025 (ANHAD MINERARIO PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/01/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the amendment to Rule 18(2) of the MMCR Rules, 2017 and annulment of the e-auction. HELD- the second proviso is vague and unworkable, incapable of compliance during live bidding, suppresses competition and defeats fair price discovery. It is ultra vires the MMDR Act and MMCR Rules, violates Article 14, the e-auction was quashed, refunds with interest directed, fresh e-auction permitted, no order as to costs, and pending applications disposed of. |
| 7 | CW / 9834 / 2006 (DR.SMT.HEMLATA TETWAL VS STATE AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/01/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the penalty order imposing withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect and setting aside of the review order. HELD- that reinstatement did not bar departmental enquiry for misconduct. Scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited, the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and natural justice, the penalty was not shockingly disproportionate, no illegality or perversity was found, and the writ petition was dismissed. |
| 8 | CRLAS / 1498 / 2023 (KAILASH CHAND SAINI SON OF SHRI SHIV SHANKAR VERMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/12/2025 The appellants sought setting aside of conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC. HELD- that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non and must be proved by clear evidence, Mere recovery is insufficient. Pendency of official work was not proved, presumption was inapplicable, and sanction showed non-application of mind. The appeal was allowed, conviction set aside, appellants acquitted. |
| 9 | CW / 14689 / 2025 (SHUBHAM REWAR S/O SHRI GAJENDRA SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/12/2025 The petitioners sought directions for holding Students’ Union elections for the academic session 2025–26. HELD- that mandamus cannot be issued in vacuum and lies, it can only be invoke where a legal duty is breached. As no prior representation was made and no enforceable right shown, the petitions were premature and not maintainable. Emphasizing academic primacy, the Court declined directions for elections, issued prospective observations, and disposed of the petition. |
| 10 | CMA / 4287 / 2025 (M/S B.K. ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/12/2025 The appellant sought setting aside of the order declining jurisdiction and prayed that the arbitral award be entertained by the Jaipur court. HELD- that under Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, once the place of arbitration operates as the seat, it confers exclusive jurisdiction; since the award was passed at Chandi Mandir, Chandigarh, only courts at Chandigarh could entertain the challenge, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. |
| 11 | CRLMP / 4531 / 2023 (VIMAL SINGH S/O SH. PITRAM SINGH, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/12/2025 The petitioner sought expunging of adverse remarks and quashing of directions issued in the judgment for initiation of disciplinary and legal proceedings. HELD- that adverse remarks affecting service career cannot be passed without affording opportunity of hearing; such remarks and directions were violative of principles of natural justice, were set aside, the petition was allowed, and the disciplinary authority was left free to examine the matter independently in accordance with law. |
| 12 | CW / 14388 / 2017 (SUKHVEER SINGH VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/09/2025 The petitioners sought directions to fill all advertised posts under LDC Recruitment, 2013 and to issue appointments with consequential benefits. The Court held that participation in a recruitment process does not create a vested right, recruitment cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely, and where restructuring of posts was reserved under the advertisement, no appointment can be claimed beyond available vacancies consequently, no relief was granted and the writ petitions were dismissed. |
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
