CW / 13163 / 2025 (MOHAMMAD SALIM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/09/2025 Pet. seek quashing of the advertisement for new fair price shops in already served areas, alleging violation of State guidelines and right to livelihood. HELD— Allotment of fair price shops is a policy matter within State’s discretion; no vested right exists to oppose new shops. The guidelines and Wadhwa Report are advisory, not enforceable. Applying Art 226 principles, Court found no arbitrariness or illegality, relaxation under the 2025 circular was valid, petitions dismissed.
2
CRLAD / 310 / 2019 (GANPAT LAL VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/09/2025 Appellant seeks alteration of conviction from Sec 302 IPC to Sec 304 Part I IPC, contending absence of premeditation & that the act occurred under sudden provocation during a quarrel. HELD- Court held that the act occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation or intent to kill, falling under Exception 4 to Sec 300 IPC. The single fatal blow, given in heat of passion, made it culpable homicide u/Sec 304 Part I IPC. Having served nine years, sentence reduced to period undergone.
3
CW / 15870 / 2025 (SHAITAN RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/09/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of order cancelling his appointment as Compounder/Nurse, claiming entitlement to bonus marks for experience with Dr. S.R. Rajasthan Ayurveda University u/Rule 19 of 1966 Rules. HELD- Court held that the petitioner’s appointment could not be sustained as it was based on an inapplicable rule. Pet. Was not entitled to bonus marks. Found the cancellation justified, Court upheld the order & dismissed the petition.
4
CW / 2932 / 2023 (SHREE ARIHANT OIL AND GENERAL MILLS VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/09/2025 Petitioner seeks adjudication of its pending refund claims for input tax credit accrued under the inverted duty structure and challenges the respondents’ inaction as contrary to Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. HELD- The restriction on refund entitlement was arbitrary, ultra vires, and violative of Article 14. Since input tax credit is a vested statutory right, it cannot be curtailed. The impugned action was quashed, and refund applications were directed to be decided afresh.
5
CRLR / 48 / 2024 (JAISHANKAR SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/09/2025 Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the trial court framing charge under Section 307 IPC and pray for their discharge from the said offence. HELD-the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC—intention and knowledge to cause death—were not made out, as injuries were simple, caused by blunt objects in a sudden fight. The charge under Section 307 IPC was quashed and the revision partly allowed.
1
CRLAD / 133 / 2018 (RAMAVTAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PP) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/09/2025 Appellant seeks setting aside of his conviction and sentence under Sections 364, 394, and 302 IPC, contending that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. HELD- the prosecution could not establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances; the recoveries were unreliable, the last-seen evidence weak and no forensic link connected the appellant to the offence. Granting benefit of doubt, the conviction and sentence were quashed and the appellant acquitted.
2
CCP / 173 / 2024 (SHRI MATADIN JANGIR S/O SHRI LAXMINARAYAN JANGIR VS SHRI NAVEEN JAIN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2025 Petitioners invoked contempt jurisdiction seeking arrears and service benefits under Bhagwan Das Todi (2015), asserting the judgment was in rem and enforceable without filing independent claims. HELD- The Court held contempt cannot substitute adjudication of entitlement; “similarly situated” in Bhagwan Das Todi applied only to employees who had pursued claims before Court/Tribunal. As no willful disobedience was shown, contempt petitions were dismissed, leaving remedy before the Edu. Tribunal.
3
CMA / 1341 / 2018 (SUSHILA VS RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/08/2025 Petitioners, as legal heirs of the deceased, seek compensation u/s 166 MV Act, alleging fatal accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent Rajendra Singh on motorcycle RJ-01-13M-9868. HELD-Court held that under Sec.166 MV Act, claimants must prove rash and negligent driving. Mere vehicle involvement or owner’s reply u/s 133 is insufficient. As no eye-witness or cogent proof was led, negligence not proved. Tribunal’s dismissal was proper; appeals dismissed.
4
CW / 17904 / 2018 (DAROGI S/O HARI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS VS CHETRAM S/O MUS. KOKAL AND HARI SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/08/2025 Petitioners ask Court to cancel SDO’s decree and higher orders, saying the trial court gave judgment without deciding each framed issue separately as required under Order XX Rule 5 CPC. HELD- Court held SDO’s judgment invalid as it gave no findings on framed issues. Order XIV & Order XX Rule 5 CPC make issue-wise decisions mandatory; omission is a fatal defect. Hence orders of SDO, Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue quashed; matter remanded for fresh decision in 6 months.
5
CRLW / 2289 / 2024 (LALA @ WARIS S/O SHRI CHHOTE KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/08/2025 Pet. seeks quashing of the DM’s order and prays for grant of parole in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021. HELD- According to rule 18 of Rules 1958, a single instance of overstaying doesn’t permanently disqualify the pet. From being granted parole in the future. Citing the mandate of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, it directed reconsideration of petitioner’s claim in accordance with law and disposed of the petition.
