EP / 6 / 2019 (PANKAJ CHOUDHARY VS KAILASH CHOUDHARY) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/04/2021 Rejection of nomination of petitioner by the Returning Officer-Issue-(1) Whether such rejection of nomination was improper; and (2) Whether this petition was liable to be rejected on account of admitted non-compliance of Section 33(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1951-Held-In view of Section 33(3) of the Act, for lack of requisite certificate issued by the ECI, the petitioner was disqualified to contest the election and, therefore, his nomination was rejected-Petition dismissed.
CW / 5108 / 2020 (BALU RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/04/2021 A certain land held by petitioner, pursuant to execution of a registered sale deed in dispute as being Johad, or restricted in nature-Held-Once the State has found the land in question to be belonging to Johad Paytan, which is a prohibited land, no allotment of the same can be made-And, no limitation can defeat the status of prohibited land being allotted-The record, as entered earlier, does not create any right in favour of petitioner, because it was wrongly entered-Petition dismissed.
CW / 8137 / 2020 (SHYAM KUMAR VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/04/2021 Petitioner questioned legality of notification dated 25.06.2015 issued by State Government in exercise of power conferred under Clause (viii) of Section 3 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, whereby all premises belonging to a religious trust have been exempted from applicability of Chapter II and III of Act of 2001-Held-It cannot be inferred from the material on record, that exemption has been granted by State Government to respondent trust in a perfunctory manner-Petition dismissed in limine.
CW / 3440 / 2021 (MOHD. AATIF @ PAPPU VS VALEED AHMED) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/03/2021 Premise given on rent by Respondents 1 and 2 to Respondent 3-Respondent No. 3 started a business in partnership with present petitioner in the said rented premises-Order passed by Rent Tribunal without impleading the petitioner as a necessary party-Held-A decree against the tenant would bind the sub-lessee as well-Also, Sub-lessee was not a necessary party and non-joinder of sub-lessee would not make a decree passed by the competent court as wrong in the eyes of law.
CW / 4120 / 2020 (PRAKASH VS SHRI RAJ KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2021 Petitioners contended that since they have stepped into the shoes of decree holder, they may be impleaded as party to contest application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC-Held-Section 146 of CPC has to be given the widest connotation-Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has to be allowed although this shall not permit petitioners at that stage to expand the dimension of adjudication beyond the scope of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC-Petition allowed.
CRLMP / 4889 / 2020 (PUNEET SOLANKI S/O VIJENDER SOLANKI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 31/03/2021 Whether FIR registered by Police without any complaint under various sections of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 as well as under Section 308 IPC deserves to be quashed?-Whether such action of the Police was justified, legal and proper?-Held-In a case where there is specialized agency provided under the Excise Act, no other person can be allowed to erode or usurp such power available with the Excise Department-FIR registered by police quashed-Cost of Ten Lacs imposed-Petition allowed.
CW / 5751 / 2000 (ST. SOLDIER PUBLIC SCHOOL JAIP VS PN SOMAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/03/2021 School Management decided to do away with transportation system of buses in school and consequently all drivers who were working were removed and their services were dispensed with-Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal allowed the appeal by the driver and issued directions for reinstatement-Held-Management was justified in dispensing with services of respondent on account of closing down the transportation system in school-Writ Petition allowed-Order of Tribunal set aside.
CW / 12343 / 2020 (MANINI KAUSHIK D/O SHRI ANIL KAUSHIK VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/03/2021 Petitioners aggrieved by action of respondents in not considering their candidature for appointment under Rajasthan Out of Turn Appointment to Sports Medal Winners Rules, 2017 on ground of having won the medals in Junior Category-Held-International Shooting Sport Federation does not draw any difference between Juniors and Seniors in World Championship- Thus, the distinction for ousting the candidature of petitioners is unjustified and discriminatory per-se-Writ Petition allowed.
CW / 13634 / 2020 (THE PROJECT DIRECTOR VS M/S ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/02/2021 Whether Arbitrator committed any illegality in permitting: (a) quantification of amount of interest, which was not calculated at time of filing claim petition, though same was claimed with interest till realization of amount; and (b) re-determination of fees of Tribunal basis the quantification-Held-Petitioners participated in arbitral proceedings even after order permitting quantification of interest and re-determination of fees-They are estopped from challenging the same-Petition dismissed.
CW / 18144 / 2015 (TEEKAM CHAND YADAV VS STATE P W D AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/02/2021 Petitioner selected to fill up remaining post after appointments were made as per first selection list-However; he was not appointed-Held-Vacancies which have been advertised have to be filled up from candidates who have applied under said advertisement. If part of selection is operated and remaining candidates who have cleared the examination are not appointed, a cogent reason must come forward from State for not filling up vacancies-Petition allowed-Petitioner to be considered for appointment.