CW / 1268 / 2003 (DALAM CHAND AND ORS VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/07/2025 Petitioners seek revised pay scales, GPF, increments, and service benefits under 1998 Rules, challenging denial based on contractual status and unfair undertakings. HELD-The Court held that calling the petitioners contractual cannot deny them rightful benefits when they worked like regular staff for years. The undertakings were held unfair. Petitioners are entitled to revised pay, GPF, and increments. Petition stands allowed.
2
CW / 12233 / 2025 (SUCHITRA BETIJI VS VAGISH KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/07/2025 Petitioners seek an interim injunction to stop respondents from using Dwarkadhish Haveli as a temple or interfering with their property rights until the trial is decided. HELD- Looking inter-se right b/w the parties, the Court permitted both parties to use the suit property during trial without conferring any legal or equitable rights. Public access limited to ground floor only. Property’s character not to be altered. Title to be decided in trial. Petition stands disposed of.
3
CW / 9125 / 2025 (TULACHHI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/07/2025 Petitioner seeks to quash clause 2.12.3 of the Raja Excise and Temperance Policy(2025–29), claiming that the 500 m warehouse distance rule is arbitrary, hard to follow in cities, and infringes rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). HELD-the Court held clause 2.12.3 valid as it applies only to fresh applications and not to pre-existing warehouses. Liquor trade is not a fundamental right; hardship alone can’t void a law. Petitioner’s challenge was premature; the petition disposed of.
4
SAW / 538 / 2025 (THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS CHANDER SHEKHAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/07/2025 Petitioner sought countersignature of his experience certificate and grant of bonus marks under Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.HELD-The Court held that petitioner’s NRHM experience counted under Panchayati Raj, so he rightly got bonus marks under Rule 273. The delay of 630 days in filing the appeal had no valid reason. Prior judgments supported the writ order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
5
CRLMB / 1544 / 2025 (BHAWANI PRATAP SINGH @ CHINTU VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/06/2025 The petitioner seeks release on bail in an NDPS Act case, citing that his wife is in the final stage of pregnancy, with no other family member to care for her, and requests temporary liberty to attend to her delivery and related needs. HELD-the Court held regular bail could not be granted due to NDPS offence gravity and prima facie evidence, but allowed temporary bail for 60 days on humanitarian grounds as petitioner’s wife is about to deliver and needs his presence
6
CW / 6599 / 2025 (RAVINDRA GURJAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/05/2025 The petitioner challenged the order dated 19.03.2025 relieving him from UDA, contending only the State Government could transfer him. HEDL-The Court held that transfer under Section 336(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 is deputation, and as per Section 8 of the Udaipur Development Authority Act, 2023, the UDA Commissioner is competent to repatriate him & no employee has a vested right to continue on his place of deputation. Writ petition dismissed.
7
CW / 11787 / 2024 (SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2025 Pet. seeks to quash the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) u/Sec 148 and asks for fresh notices to be issued by the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO). HELD- the Court held that the notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were invalid. It directed that fresh notices be issued by the FAO in accordance with the faceless assessment scheme, ensuring compliance with the automated allocation system prescribed under Section 151A
1
CW / 13803 / 2024 (KARTIKEY S/O RAMCHANDRA VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/07/2025 Petitioner seeks appointment as Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi) under PH (low vision) category, claiming eligibility based on total marks despite not securing 70 WPM shorthand speed. HELD- Court held petitioner was ineligible under Rule 10 as he failed to secure 70 WPM in Hindi shorthand, a mandatory requirement. Marks alone cannot override clear rule. Undertaking literal interpretation, the Court found no merit in the claim. Petition was accordingly dismissed.
2
CMA / 5302 / 2024 (THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS SANWARIYA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/05/2025 Petitioner assailing the order passed by the commercial courts, dismissing the objections filed u/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. HELD: Court u/s 34 and in appeal u/s 37 has power to sever part of award in cases meeting out the parameters set out in the judgment. In the case in hand the claims can be divided into two heads. Both claims are severable and are not inter connected. The severability of both claims is legally and practically possible. Appeal partly allowed.
3
CW / 16312 / 2024 (KOMAL KUMAWAT D/O SHRI PREM CHAND VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/05/2025 Pet. assailing the notification issued by the DOP, Govt. of Raj. & Advt. issued by the RSSB, Jaipur, inviting applications for recruitment for vacancies of Jnr. Ins. HELD: Validity of Rule cannot be examined by keeping into account any peculiar conditions of particular persons. Rules are framed in generality by keeping in mind interest of entire class as a whole. Advt. has also been issued strictly in accordance with the Rules & there is no apparent illegality. Petitions dismissed.
4
CW / 840 / 2025 (UMAKANT SHARMA SON OF LATE SHRI HARBAKSH LAL VS OM PRAKASH SHARMA SON OF SHRI HARBAKSH LAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2025 The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned orders and requested the matter be sent back to the Trial Court for a fresh decision after properly framing issues and recording evidence as per CPC. HELD- the Court held that non-framing of issues u/O 14 CPC is a grave procedural error. Such failure violates mandatory legal duties of the court. It quashed all lower court decisions and remanded for a fresh trial after proper framing of issues, recording of evidence & training of revenue officer.
5
CR / 60 / 2025 (AURIC INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED VS AMIT KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/05/2025 The plaintiff seeks a declaration and permanent injunction against the President and Secretary of Auric Villas Residents Welfare Society over the discontinuation of facilities. HELD- the Court held the civil suit is barred under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Apartment Ownership Act, 2015, as the Competent Authority has exclusive jurisdiction. Hence, the civil suit was rejected, and the revision petition was allowed.
