| 1 | CW / 5128 / 2026 (APOORVA AGRAWAT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/09/2026 The petitioner sought protection of Jawai leopard habitat and regulation of construction and tourism. HELD- As unrestricted construction could cause irreversible habitat damage and no comprehensive scientific policy existed, the Court adopted 1 km as an interim protective zone, supported by scientific material and the State’s existing policy. It was not permanent and could be revised after scientific assessment. Copy of judgment be circulated. All pending applications stand disposed of. |
| 2 | CW / 6350 / 2026 (DURGA SHANKAR ALIAS DURGESH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/09/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of orders directing sealing/demolition of constructions in the Sajjangarh Eco-Sensitive Zone. HELD- Deemed permission under general development law cannot override express environmental restrictions under the 13.02.2017 Notification and Zonal Master Plan. Precautionary principle and Public Trust Doctrine require environmental protection to prevail over private interest; investment or parity cannot legitimise unauthorised construction. Writ petitions dismissed. |
| 3 | CRLMB / 6014 / 2026 (NAND KISHORE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/08/2026 The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 BNSS, alleging that the night search without warrant violated Section 42 NDPS Act. HELD- A night search without warrant is permissible where the officer records reasons showing that delay may lead to escape or concealment and communicates the information as required. Here, prima facie compliance was shown. Since commercial quantity was recovered, Section 37 barred bail absent reasonable grounds of innocence; application dismissed. |
| 4 | CW / 20918 / 2026 (SMT. NIKITA VS RAJU SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/08/2026 Petitioners sought registration of a suit for permanent injunction, challenging valuation on market value as a declaratory suit merely because title by adverse possession was pleaded. HELD- Pleading accrued title by adverse possession does not itself constitute declaratory relief; the plaint must be read as a whole. Threshold scrutiny cannot become a mini-trial on title or adverse possession. Order quashed; plaint to be registered and injunction application considered. Writ petition allowed. |
| 5 | CW / 8961 / 2022 (BABU MOHAMMED PANWAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 and continuation of disciplinary proceedings after his death. HELD-Disciplinary proceedings, being personal to the delinquent, cannot continue after his death where no final penalty was imposed in his lifetime. Charge-sheet and consequential proceedings quashed; retiral benefits to be considered; pending applications disposed of. |
| 6 | CW / 17948 / 2019 (KUNDAN MAL VS NARPAT SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2026 Petitioners sought setting aside of the order permitting Defendant No.1 to amend his written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC after framing of issues but before commencement of evidence. HELD- Amendment elaborating an existing defence may be allowed where it aids complete adjudication, does not alter the suit’s nature or introduce a destructive defence, and causes no irreparable prejudice. Article 227 interference was unwarranted. Writ petition dismissed; impugned order affirmed. |
| 7 | CFA / 221 / 2026 (DEVARAM VS KHETARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/08/2026 Appellant sought declaration of his 1/9th coparcenary share and cancellation of sale deeds concerning agricultural land inherited by his father under Section 8 HSA. HELD- Inheritance by the father under Section 8 does not confer a birthright on the son absent pleaded HUF/coparcenary character. The foundational khatedari right also required declaration by the competent revenue court before consequential relief. Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment affirmed. |
| 8 | CW / 8018 / 2026 (SMT. DEU BAI VS LALURAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/08/2026 Petitioner sought to place the original FSL/handwriting expert report on record under Order VIII Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC. HELD- Evidence may prove a pleaded case but cannot supply a material factual foundation absent from the pleadings. As authorship of the signatures was not disputed, the report introduced a new factual issue and lacked nexus with the defence; its existence since 2017 was also unexplained. Article 227 interference unwarranted, Writ dismissed; order affirmed. |
| 9 | CW / 12364 / 2024 (SHRI HARSH GEHANI VS SHRI HARJEET SINGH GUJRAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/08/2026 Petitioners challenged the stay of an eviction decree and the fixation of interim mesne profits under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, particularly whether Rs.1 lakh per month was justified. HELD- Appellate Court may impose reasonable interim mesne profits while staying eviction, but the amount must reflect the premises' rental potential, not conjecture. Rs.1 lakh reduced to Rs.50, 000, other stay conditions upheld; pending applications disposed of. |
| 10 | CRLMP / 3378 / 2026 (RAJENDRA KUMAR @ SURAJMAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/07/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the order directing further investigation, alleging that the Magistrate prescribed its manner. HELD- A Magistrate may direct further investigation under Section 193(9) BNSS, but its mode and manner remain with the investigating agency. Here, the Magistrate only recorded investigative deficiencies and gave no point-wise directions; the reasoned order was lawful. Petition dismissed; further investigation to proceed independently. |
| 11 | CMA / 1277 / 2026 (LRS OF LATE SHREE RAMESH CHANDRA PATEL VS CITY PULSE ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/05/2026 The appellants sought restoration of the arbitral award set aside by the Commercial Court on grounds of non-arbitrability and expiry of the Arbitrator’s mandate. HELD- Though the dispute was non-arbitrable under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the respondent waived jurisdictional objection by participating without a Section 16 objection. The Section 29A application could be considered post-award; award restored but remained unenforceable pending its decision. |
| 12 | CW / 13071 / 2024 (M/S GIRI TRANSPORT COMPANY VS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the order rejecting preliminary objections to departmental appeals against the Advance Ruling. HELD- The 90-day period under Section 101(2) is directory; expiry does not extinguish a valid appeal. Appeals were within permissible limitation, both CGST and SGST officers had statutory appellate rights, and manual filing was valid. No natural-justice violation or estoppel arose. Writ petition dismissed. |
| 13 | CW / 23613 / 2025 (GAINWELL SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the BDA’s decision applying the Rajasthan Township Policy, 2025 to its pending layout plan. HELD- Clause 1.7 is a savings clause; “can be approved” must be read as “shall be approved”, requiring pending applications to be considered under the 2010 Policy. Clause 4.2 conferred no power to enhance the facility area. Decision quashed; layout plan to be processed under the 2010 Policy. |
| 14 | CRLAD / 326 / 2025 (VEER SINGH ALIAS BUNTY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2026 The appellants sought setting aside of their convictions under Sections 343 and 376D IPC. HELD- The prosecutrix’s earliest statement contradicted the later FIR, while material improvements, the Investigating Officer’s admissions, lack of medical and forensic corroboration, and absence of independent evidence created reasonable doubt. Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; convictions and sentences set aside and appellants acquitted. |
| 15 | SAW / 1162 / 2025 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS CHANDRA PAL SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2026 The appellants sought setting aside of the order of quashing termination of the respondent. HELD- Where appointment itself is founded on alleged fraud or forged documents, Article 311 and the Rules of 1958 are not attracted. However, termination requires minimum natural justice, including disclosure of relied-upon material and effective opportunity to respond. Setting aside termination order of single bench is modified Appeals partly allowed; cases remitted to reconstitute Committee. |
| 16 | CRLR / 1721 / 2025 (VINAY BAGHLA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of charges under Section 111 BNS for alleged organised crime. HELD- Section 111 requires prima facie material showing an organised crime syndicate, continuing unlawful activity and its nexus with the accused; multiple accused or cyber/financial fraud alone is insufficient. The Trial Court failed to independently examine these ingredients and relied on an unrelated FIR. Charges under Section 111 quashed; petitioners discharged. |
| 17 | CRLMP / 8059 / 2022 (MUKNA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR under Section 379 IPC arising from a dispute over possession and repossession of a financed vehicle. HELD- Theft requires dishonest intention at the time of moving property. The record showed a bona fide contractual dispute, continuing proprietary interest and repossession rights, with no prima facie dishonest intent. Criminal proceedings would abuse process; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed. |
| 18 | CRLBC / 75 / 2024 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS SMT SEEMA JAKHAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/05/2026 The State sought cancellation of bail granted to the respondent under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the gravity of the offences was not considered. HELD- Cancellation requires post-bail misconduct, violation of conditions or supervening circumstances; an earlier bail order may otherwise be set aside only if illegal or perverse. The State showed none; this Court could not sit in appeal over a Co-ordinate Bench’s order. Application dismissed. |
| 19 | CR / 155 / 2026 (SANDEEP SINGH VS BABITA YADAV) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/05/2026 The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that a title dispute required declaratory relief. HELD- A suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable where the plaint asserts ownership and possession; absence of declaratory relief alone does not bar it. At the Order VII Rule 11 stage, only plaint averments are examined; disputed title and defence cannot be adjudicated. Revision dismissed. |
| 20 | CRLA / 631 / 1997 (LILADHAR ALLIAS GATIYA VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/05/2026 The appellant sought alteration of his conviction under Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC. HELD- Section 307 IPC requires intention or knowledge to cause death; mere use of a knife is insufficient. The fatal abdominal injury was not reliably attributed to the appellant, while the only proved injury was simple and did not establish such intention or knowledge. Conviction altered to Section 324 IPC; sentence reduced to period undergone, fine maintained. |
| 21 | CRLR / 46 / 2007 (BAHADUR SINGH VS STATE AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/05/2026 The petitioner sought setting aside of the acquittal of respondent Nos.2 to 4 under Section 436 IPC. HELD- Revisional interference with acquittal is warranted only for manifest perversity, gross illegality or palpable miscarriage of justice. The prosecution failed to reliably establish the accused’s specific overt acts; the Trial Court’s plausible view was supported by evidence. Re-appreciation of evidence was impermissible; revision dismissed. |
| 22 | CW / 4437 / 2018 (UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS N.P. ARORA AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/05/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the Tribunal’s order setting aside the charge-sheet and penalty imposed on the respondent for allowing Section 10B exemption. HELD- A mere error in a quasi-judicial order is not misconduct absent mala fide intent, undue favour, lack of integrity or conscious disregard of law. The assessment was a bona fide, plausible view supported by precedent and later upheld by ITAT; disciplinary action was unwarranted. Writ petition dismissed. |
| 23 | CRLMP / 7943 / 2025 (REKHRAJ VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging non-application of mind. HELD- Sanction is a statutory filter requiring conscious consideration of prima facie material, not a mini-trial or detailed appreciation of evidence. The authority considered the allegations, verification and investigation material; elaborate reasons were unnecessary. Sanction upheld; petition dismissed. |
| 24 | CSA / 252 / 2025 (HARI RAM VS CHUNNI DEVI) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the concurrent judgments declaring the adoption deed dated 20.07.2009 void. HELD- A valid adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 requires proof of actual giving and taking of the child; an adoption deed alone is insufficient. The mandatory ceremony and subsequent treatment as adopted son were not proved. No substantial question of law arose; appeal dismissed and decrees affirmed. |
| 25 | CW / 21163 / 2025 (LAL SINGH CHOUHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the suspension order dated 23.09.2025 for want of jurisdiction. HELD- Suspension is not an unfettered executive power and must be exercised by the authority competent under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The District Education Officer showed no statutory authority to suspend; executive displeasure over social-media comments could not confer such power. Order quashed; reinstatement directed. |
| 26 | CW / 9583 / 2022 (SQN. LDR.C. SINGH (RETD.) VS THE UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal’s orders and grant of two increments in addition to Flying Officer pay under AFI 48/75. HELD- AFI 48/75 entitled an Airman with over eight years’ service to both commission as Flying Officer and two years’ ante-date for pay. The word “and” made these distinct benefits; hence two increments were payable over Rs.2,500/-, making pay Rs.2,700/-. Tribunal orders quashed with consequential benefits. |
| 27 | CRLR / 599 / 2025 (RAKESH SHARMA VS MANJU DEVI) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2026 The petitioner sought modification of maintenance and compensation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. HELD- DV Act jurisdiction is remedial and protective, not a substitute for criminal adjudication; disputed cruelty allegations pending criminal prosecution cannot found compensation. Further, prolonged delay made retrospective maintenance oppressive and contrary to its object of immediate succour. Compensation was set aside and maintenance modified accordingly. |
| 28 | CW / 1724 / 2024 (PRADEEP SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/05/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the orders rejecting their Section 3G (5) applications concerning denial of compensation for standing trees. HELD- A reasoned denial of compensation by CALA constitutes a “determination” under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Disputes over complete denial or undervaluation are arbitrable; the applications were maintainable. Orders quashed and matters remanded for decision on merits. |
| 29 | CRLMP / 1844 / 2025 (LAKSHITA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/05/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings, alleging illegal detention and biased investigation. HELD- Serious violations of arrest safeguards, inconsistent records and missing CCTV footage created a reasonable apprehension of an unfair investigation. As allegations were against the investigating police, investigation was transferred to the CBI despite filing of charge-sheet. Trial proceedings deferred pending CBI report. Pending applications disposed of. |
| 30 | CSA / 251 / 2025 (LRS OF MAHAVEER SINGH VS NARENDRA SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/05/2026 The appellants sought interference with concurrent findings dismissing their suit for specific performance, cancellation and injunction based on alleged agreements to sell. HELD- Findings that the agreements were unproved and unreliable, based on evidence, could not be interfered with under Section 100 CPC absent perversity, illegality or a substantial question of law. Re-appreciation of evidence was impermissible; appeal dismissed |
| 31 | SAW / 552 / 2026 (RAMESH KUMAR SONI VS SAMPAT RAJ SONI) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2026 The petitioner sought setting aside of the eviction order, contending that the Maintenance Tribunal lacked power to evict him under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. HELD- the Tribunal has an implicit, discretionary power to order eviction for a senior citizen’s protection. The father’s ownership, harassment and criminal hostility justified eviction; no jurisdictional error was shown. Appeal dismissed. |
| 32 | CRLW / 224 / 2026 (ISLAM KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2026 The petitioners sought restraint against police photographing and circulating their images after arrest, alleging violation of dignity, privacy and fair trial. HELD- Police power to investigate does not include power to declare guilt or impose punishment. Public condemnation through media exposure, staged photographs or social-media circulation amounts to extra-legal punishment, violates presumption of innocence and Article 21; police cannot conduct a parallel social/media trail. |
| 33 | CW / 12887 / 2012 (M/S. ANIL SUGAR CANDY WORKS VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the search and seizure of their business and residential premises u/Sec 75 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, alleging no sufficient basis. HELD- Residential premises may be searched where tangible material creates reasonable belief of tax evasion or concealment of business records. Here, the complaint, inquiry reports, common ownership, similar businesses and prior tax proceedings furnished such basis; search upheld and petitions dismissed. |
| 34 | CMA / 2109 / 2007 (UNION OF INDIA VS V S SAINI) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/04/2026 Whether the Arbitrator's interpretation of the contract and appreciation of documents amounted to misconduct or perversity warranting interference under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and whether the 117-day delay deserved condonation. HELD- The Arbitrator adopted a plausible interpretation, considered the material record, and committed no misconduct or perversity. The delay was inadequately explained. Both appeals dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of. |
| 35 | CMA / 1667 / 2008 (THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS SMT. JAMNA KANWAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/04/2026 Whether a tractor licence validly authorised driving the insured tempo and whether the insurer was liable despite the alleged licence breach. HELD: A tractor is included in LMV under Section 2(21); the 1,180-kg tempo was an LMV, and Section 10 prescribes no tractor licence. No separate transport endorsement was required; no policy breach arose and the insurer remained liable. ₹4,000 income was proved. Appeal dismissed; award upheld. |
| 36 | CW / 1665 / 2016 (SHREE RAJ. SYNTEX VS STATE ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/04/2026 Petitioners sought to challenge levy under the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act, 1962 on open-access electricity, AVVNL’s collection authority, and inclusion of transmission losses as energy consumed. HELD- Open-access electricity consumed in Rajasthan attracts duty/cess; AVVNL may collect it under Rule 3. Transmission losses are not “energy consumed”; metering rules or contract cannot enlarge the charge. Petitions partly allowed; actual consumption taxable; pending applications disposed of. |
| 37 | CRLMP / 9802 / 2025 (KUNARAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/04/2026 Petitioner sought exemption from the 20% pre-deposit imposed while suspending sentence u/Sec 430 BNSS in an appeal against Section 138 N.I. Act conviction. HELD- Sections 430 BNSS and 148 N.I. Act operates independently; Section 148 requires a complainant’s application and judicious exercise after hearing the accused, not routine imposition. Deposit may be dispensed with where it causes injustice. Condition set aside; appeal to proceed without pre-deposit. Petition disposed accordingly. |
| 38 | CRLA / 193 / 1998 (STATE VS SEWA SINGH AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/04/2026 The State sought setting aside of the probation granted despite conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. HELD- Probation was justified for first-time offenders without adverse antecedents, considering their reformation and prolonged prosecution. The Trial Court balanced societal interest with rehabilitation through conditions ensuring accountability. Absent illegality, perversity or gross impropriety, appellate interference was unwarranted; appeal dismissed. |
| 39 | CMA / 397 / 2026 (SMT. ASHA VS SHRI VINOD) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/04/2026 Petitioner sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) HMA on grounds of cruelty and desertion despite alleged inconsistencies in her evidence. HELD-Matrimonial cruelty is assessed cumulatively on preponderance of probabilities; minor variations and delayed FIR do not defeat a consistent case. Six years’ separation and respondent’s conduct established cruelty and desertion. Family Court judgment reversed; divorce granted. Pending applications disposed of. |
| 40 | SAW / 1111 / 2024 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/04/2026 State challenged counting of respondents’ contractual service from 2002/2004 for pension and other benefits. HELD- Though termed contractual, their engagement was essentially on urgent temporary basis and continued uninterruptedly until regular appointment in 2015. Service from 2002/2004 to 2015 is qualifying service under Rules 3(r) and 12 of the Pension Rules, 1996. Probation could not restart in 2015; prior service also qualified for privilege leave. State’s appeal dismissed. |
| 41 | CRLMP / 2009 / 2026 (MOHAMMAD ATIK VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/04/2026 Peti challenged bailable warrants issued after filing of charge-sheet, though they were not arrested during investigation. HELD- Where custody was not required during investigation & there is no likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence or evading process, accused should not be taken into custody merely for consideration of bail. “Custody” u/Sec 170 CrPC means presentation before Court, not compulsory arrest. Warrants can’t be issued casually; petition allowed & warrants quashed. |
| 42 | CW / 7624 / 2019 (UNION OF INDIA VS SUMER LAL CHOUHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/04/2026 Petitioner sought to challenge the Tribunal’s direction granting temporary status and consideration for regularization. HELD- Long, continuous service of over 30 years, where the Department did not dispute engagement or required service under the 1993 Scheme and conceded appointments were not irregular, warranted consideration for regularization. Benefits of employees who left service in 2009 were confined to actual service. Writ dismissed qua R1 & R2 and partly allowed qua R3 & R4. |
| 43 | CW / 995 / 2012 (SMT. SATYA GARG VS KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/04/2026 Petitioner challenged disciplinary penalty for excess grace marks and manipulation of examination records. HELD- Section 16 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was inapplicable to 2005-2006. Award of grace marks beyond Article 106 of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas was proved. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence where adequate opportunity of defence was given. Penalty under Rule 11(vi) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was valid; writ petition dismissed. |
| 44 | ITA / 141 / 2011 (HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. VS A.C.I.T.CIRCLE-2,UDAIPUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/04/2026 Whether the assessee’s claim for Section 244A interest on the refund arising from the set-off of ₹5.53 crores was legally tenable despite the ITAT’s earlier direction under KVSS. HELD- Section 244A mandates interest where refund is due, but the ITAT’s unchallenged direction denying interest to the extent covered by KVSS had attained finality. The CIT (A)’s contrary direction was illegal and without jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. |
| 45 | CRLA / 643 / 1997 (STATE VS HAZARI LAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/04/2026 State sought reversal of acquittal under Sections 8/18 NDPS Act for alleged opium recovery, where the accused was outside the house and exclusive control of the recovery room was unproved. HELD-Mere proximity does not establish possession; conscious and exclusive possession requires corpus, animus and dominion/control, proved beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to prove exclusive control created reasonable doubt. Acquittal affirmed; appeal dismissed, bail bonds discharged and record returned. |
| 46 | CRLBC / 70 / 2025 (ARJIN RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/04/2026 Complainant sought cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.2. HELD- Under Section 483(3) BNSS, 2023, bail is a conditional liberty. Repeated threats, coercive demands and intimidation after release constitute supervening circumstances warranting cancellation. Intimidation of the complainant or witnesses imperils a fair trial. Bail cancellation is preventive, not punitive. Bail order set aside; Respondent No.2 directed to surrender forthwith. |
| 47 | CRLAS / 745 / 2022 (KANA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/04/2026 Appellant challenged conviction for demanding and accepting bribe. HELD- under the Prevention of Corruption Act, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant turned hostile; no work was pending; tainted money was recovered from the ground. Electronic evidence was inadmissible without a valid, contemporaneous Section 65B certificate; a six-year-delayed certificate could not cure the defect. Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted. |
| 48 | CRLW / 1646 / 2026 (ASLAM KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings arising from a 2004 FIR under Section 379 IPC. HELD- Though mere delay does not extinguish investigation, continued pendency despite petitioner not being named, acquittal of the charge-sheeted accused, absence of fresh incriminating material and complete investigative stagnation violates Article 21. Indefinite investigative inertia is impermissible and continuation amounts to abuse of criminal process; proceedings qua petitioner quashed. |
| 49 | CMA / 412 / 2025 (JAI NARAYAN VYAS UNIVERSITY VS M/S SAWAI ENGINEERS) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2026 University challenged the arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. HELD- Section 37 jurisdiction is even more narrowly circumscribed,the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view where the Arbitrator’s findings represent a plausible view. An alternative interpretation of Clause 6 is no ground for interference. The findings on limitation represented a possible view; no ground for interference was made out. Appeal dismissed; award upheld. |
| 50 | CRLAD / 280 / 2019 (MAGHA RAM VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2026 Whether the conviction under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC could be sustained when the prosecution failed to establish cruelty for dowry and the complete chain of circumstantial evidence. HELD- Section 106 cannot be invoked to fill gaps in the prosecution case; the initial burden remains on the prosecution. The FSL report was insufficient. Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. |
| 51 | CW / 5368 / 2025 (TAKHAT SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/04/2026 Whether the impugned order was violative of the principles of natural justice and unsustainable for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of 30 days' notice. HELD- A separate and specific 30-days' notice must precede the final termination decision. Mere incorporation or recital of termination in the initial notice is insufficient compliance. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the mining lease is restored. |
| 52 | CW / 4247 / 2026 (FEDERATION OF PRIVATE MEDICAL AND DENTAL COLLEGE OF RAJASTHAN VS CHAIRMAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/04/2026 Whether denial of reservation benefits to reserved-category candidates belonging to other States was arbitrary and violative of the constitutional mandate. HELD- Benefits of reservation granted in one State cannot be extended to reserved category candidates belonging to another State. Instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. |
| 53 | CW / 4523 / 2026 (SHRI NITIN JAIN VS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/04/2026 Petitioners alleged illegal construction and encroachment in Mount Abu ESZ. HELD- The principal allegations of continuing large-scale encroachment did not survive on record. However, the ESZ Notifications and Zonal Master Plan 2030 are enforceable; no construction or activity contrary to them can be permitted. Strict monitoring and enforcement are mandatory to protect Mount Abu’s fragile ecology. Environmental protection is a constitutional mandate u/Art21, 48A and 51A(g). PIL disposed of. |
| 54 | CRLA / 612 / 1996 (STATE VS SURAJ DASS) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/04/2026 The State sought reversal of the acquittal, contending that the prosecution had proved the recovery and compliance with the NDPS safeguards. HELD- Material contradictions, doubtful chain of custody, inadequate proof of Sections 42/50 compliance and failure to establish conscious possession cumulatively created reasonable doubt. The Trial Court’s view was plausible and legally sustainable; hence no interference was warranted. Appeal dismissed; acquittal affirmed. |
| 55 | CRLAS / 644 / 2026 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS ASHOK CHANDER BHATIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2026 Whether the acquittal could be reversed when the prosecutrix and witnesses vacillated and the evidence admitted two reasonable views. HELD- The preliminary inquiry report was only corroborative and could not substitute substantive proof; contradictions and partial retraction by the prosecutrix, with discordant inquiry material, created reasonable doubt. As the Trial Court’s view was possible and lawful, and not perverse, benefit of doubt was rightly given. Appeal dismissed; acquittal affirmed. |
| 56 | CRLAS / 142 / 2026 (OM PRAKASH NAYAK VS GOPAL RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/04/2026 The appellant sought restoration of the Section 138 NI Act complaint, challenging its dismissal for one instance of non-appearance. HELD- Since dismissal for default carries consequences akin to acquittal, the Court must apply its mind to deliberate or contumacious default, prior diligence, prejudice and whether another opportunity is warranted. Mechanical dismissal defeats adjudication on merits; the non-speaking, disproportionate order was set aside and the complaint restored. |
| 57 | CRLMP / 522 / 2026 (VIVEK SINGH RAJPUT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/04/2026 Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence warranting investigation and whether absence of a specifically delineated role warrants quashing at the nascent stage. HELD- The FIR is not an encyclopedia; absence of a specifically delineated role is not a ground for quashing where investigation is required to ascertain culpability. The Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry or mini-trial. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. |
| 1 | CFA / 369 / 2019 (SMT GOMA DEVI W/O SHRI MANNA LAL D/O SHRI KANA VS LAXMI NARAIN SHARMA S/O SHRI GAINDI LAL SHARMA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/09/2026 The appellant sought cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 16.04.2009 for non-payment of the full sale consideration. HELD- under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, non-payment of the entire consideration does not invalidate a completed registered sale where title was intended to pass; the seller’s remedy is recovery of unpaid consideration. Sale deed, possession and mutation supported transfer. Appeal dismissed |
| 2 | CW / 17249 / 2026 (DWARKA PRASAD SON OF LATE SHRI SITARAM VS DURGALAL SON OF LATE SHRI SITARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/09/2026 The petitioner sought setting aside of the order condoning delay in filing defendant No.3’s written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. HELD- In non-commercial suits, the timeline is directory and delay may be condoned on sufficient explanation assessed flexibly. Here, no ex parte order or forfeiture existed, proceedings were pending, and no substantial prejudice was caused. Trial Court’s order was lawful; writ petition dismissed. |
| 3 | CW / 11020 / 2026 (RAMLAXMAN MEENA S/O SHRI TEJA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/09/2026 The petitioner sought issuance of a No Dues/No Objection Certificate to contest the Panchayati Raj election despite dues recoverable from his wife. HELD- A spouse is not liable for the other’s dues without statutory authority or personal involvement. As the petitioner was neither surety nor guarantor and no law authorised recovery from family members, the certificate could not be withheld. Petition allowed; certificate to be issued forthwith. Pending applications disposed of. |
| 4 | CRLMP / 4993 / 2023 (PRAMOD KUMAR SON OF SHRI MAHESH CHAND, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/09/2026 The Court addressed deficiencies in scanning and uploading case records that obstructed paperless hearings. HELD- Complete and timely digitization is essential for effective paperless justice; accountability must be fixed for scanning, bookmarking, indexing and uploading every document. The 02.11.2020 Standing Order, confined to criminal matters, required amendment to cover all jurisdictions. Registrar (Judicial) directed to place amended Standing Order before the Chief Justice. |
| 5 | CW / 16193 / 2026 (MANNI DEVI WIFE OF RAMPRASAD VS BHULI DEVI WIFE OF SHRI GANGARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/09/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the interim stay passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the consequential Board of Revenue order, contending that delay in the time-barred appeal had to be condoned first. HELD- Limitation goes to appellate jurisdiction; until delay is condoned, the appeal remains defective. Interim stay is permissible only in extreme and exceptional circumstances, absent here. Both orders quashed; the Authority directed to decide the Section 5 application first. |
| 6 | CW / 11546 / 2026 (VARSHA GOYAL, W/O SHRI TARUN GOYAL VS JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) Date of Order/Judgment: 31/08/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the Appellate Tribunal’s order directing the parties to submit their pattas and restraining her from alienating the property. HELD- The Tribunal could not issue such directions without recording cogent reasons and findings after considering the parties’ material. Absence of reasons violated natural justice and rendered the order unsustainable. Order quashed; fresh reasoned order within four weeks. Pending applications disposed of. |
| 7 | CW / 13175 / 2025 (KUSUM SHARMA W/O LT. SHRI DINESH MISHRA, VS SUSHILA MAHARSHI W/O SHRI RAVIKANT MAHARSHI D/O LT. SHRI DAULAL MISHRA,) Date of Order/Judgment: 31/08/2026 The petitioner sought setting aside of the compromise decree as an independent third party claiming rights in the properties. HELD- A third party independently claiming rights is not barred by Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC from pursuing appropriate remedies. However, her disputed marital status and locus could not be decided under Section 151 CPC read with Order XXIII Rule 3. Trial Court’s findings on status were without jurisdiction; petitioner left free to pursue appropriate remedy. |
| 8 | CW / 14986 / 2026 (JUGAL KISHOR S/O DHANNA LAL VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/08/2026 Petitioners sought quashing of transfer orders, alleging arbitrariness, policy violations and non-consideration of personal circumstances. HELD- Transfer is an incident of service; personal hardship alone does not warrant interference, but mala fides, arbitrariness, statutory violation or breach of binding policy may invite judicial review. Grievances to be considered by departmental committees through reasoned orders; interim protection granted. Writ petitions disposed of. |
| 9 | SAW / 911 / 2019 (RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS MANOJ KUMAR S/O SHRI MOTI SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/08/2026 The appellants sought setting aside of the order quashing termination of the respondents’ contractual engagement and directing reinstatement. HELD- Where discontinuance is founded on misconduct, it is punitive and stigmatic and cannot be effected without notice of the allegation and an opportunity of hearing. The respondents’ termination was misconduct-based. Appeals dismissed; reinstatement with continuity and liberty for fresh enquiry affirmed. |
| 10 | CUSTA / 1 / 2025 (COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) VS M/S ACME AKLERA POWER TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/08/2026 Petitioner sought levy of interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, on solar modules not installed and cleared after 90 days. HELD- Capital goods intended for use in a Section 65 warehouse fall under Section 61(1) (a), for which no interest is prescribed under Section 61(2). Subsequent non-installation due to changes in project design does not alter their intended use. CESTAT order upheld; appeal dismissed. |
| 11 | CRLMP / 2038 / 2026 (NURUL ISLAM SON OF SHRI ABDUL JABBARAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/05/2026 The petitioners sought bail after their statements were recorded as approvers despite Section 306(4) (b) Cr.P.C. and sought to return to Bangladesh. HELD- Sec 306(4) (b) does not bar exceptional exercise of Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the approver has been examined, complied with pardon conditions, and prolonged custody with no near prospect of trial violates Article 21. Bail granted; departure remained subject to Immigration officer under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 and Order. |
| 12 | CR / 212 / 2025 (JAGDISH S/O CHHOTELAL, VS RAMESH CHAND) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2026 The petitioners sought rejection of the civil suit challenging a Revenue Court decree based on compromise. HELD- Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC bars a separate suit even where the compromise is alleged fraudulent; its validity must be examined by the same Revenue Court. Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 provides review remedy. Revision allowed; suit rejected, with liberty to approach the competent Revenue Court. |
| 13 | CFA / 283 / 2016 (M/S DHANVARSHA OIL MILLS PVT LTD VS M/S HARI INDUSTRIESHARI OIL MILL) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the decree restraining use of “METRO ENGINE” for alleged infringement of “ENGINE” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. HELD- The plaintiff failed to establish locus, prior use, goodwill and reputation; Section 31 registration was only rebuttable prima facie evidence, burden could not shift to defendant, and deceptive similarity was inadequately reasoned. Decree quashed; suit remanded for de novo adjudication with liberty to lead evidence. |
| 14 | CRLMB / 4778 / 2026 (JHABRA RAM S/O SHRI BANA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 The petitioner sought bail on the ground that the written grounds of arrest were not furnished to him. HELD- Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS require written communication of grounds of arrest; oral communication is permissible exceptionally, followed by written grounds at least two hours before remand. Here, the record did not show written grounds were furnished and the Magistrate failed to verify compliance. Arrest held illegal; petitioner enlarged on bail. Pending applications disposed of. |
| 15 | CRLW / 1940 / 2023 (TRIVIKRAM SINGH RATHORE S/O SHRI DUSHYANT SINGH RATHORE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/05/2026 Petitioner sought renewal of his passport under the Passports Act, 1967, despite pendency of a criminal case. HELD- Mere pendency of an FIR/criminal case is not an absolute bar to passport renewal; refusal must satisfy the Passports Act and Article 21. The right to possess a passport is distinct from travel abroad, which may be regulated by Court-imposed conditions. Impugned order quashed; application reconsidered; writ petition disposed of. |
| 16 | ARBAP / 17 / 2025 (ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA SON OF LATE SHRI KALYAN PRASAD GUPTA, VS PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA S/O LATE DR. RAMKUMAR GUPTA,) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/05/2026 Petitioners sought appointment of a sole arbitrator u/Sec 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite absence of Sec 21 notice and other objections. HELD- Sec 11 inquiry is confined to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and dispute; other contentious issues are for the Tribunal. Prior Section 9 proceedings established respondents’ knowledge, making the application maintainable without separate Section 21 notice. Sole arbitrator appointed; application disposed of. |
| 17 | SAW / 502 / 2023 (JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS ALOK KOTAHWALA S/O HARIDAS KOTAHWALA) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/04/2026 Petitioner sought to uphold acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, raising validity of Section 5A proceedings and scope of Article 226 review after the Section 6 declaration. HELD: Section 5A was validly complied with; failure to avail the opportunity did not vitiate the enquiry. After Section 6, Section 5A stood concluded. Article 226 cannot reassess the merits of a technical public project. Appeals allowed; Single Judge’s order set aside; pending applications disposed of. |
| 18 | CRLMB / 6027 / 2026 (VISHAL S/O SHRI MAHAVEER VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/04/2026 Petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, claiming parity despite bail rejection of a similarly placed co-accused by the Supreme Court. HELD- Held, parity operates both ways; rejection of bail to a similarly situated co-accused, affirmed by the Supreme Court after hearing merits, warrants judicial consistency. Absent distinguishing circumstances, bail cannot be granted merely by invoking parity. Bail dismissed. |
| 19 | CW / 1991 / 2026 (JITENDRA NATH SACHHAR S/O SRI SAI DASS SACHHAR VS YODJRAJ S/O SHRI SAI DASS SACHHAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/04/2026 Whether, after impounding an insufficiently stamped instrument, the Court can merely retain it on record or must follow Sections 37, 39 and 42 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. HELD- Impounding triggers a mandatory statutory process. If the party agrees to pay duty and penalty, the Court may admit it upon payment; otherwise, it must send the instrument to the Collector for determination. Mere retention is impermissible. Order quashed. |
| 20 | CRLMB / 16428 / 2025 (HANSRAJ GURJAR S/O SH. RAMGOPAL VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/04/2026 Petitioner sought bail under Section 483 BNSS, relying on prolonged custody, likely delay in trial and Section 480(6) BNSS. HELD- Section 480(6) does not confer an absolute or indefeasible right to bail; mere length of incarceration is not determinative. Considering the nature and gravity of the economic offence, magnitude of alleged evasion and material on record, bail was declined. Bail application dismissed. |
| 21 | CRLMP / 111 / 2014 (SMT SHIMLA SHARMA AND ORS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/04/2026 Petitioner sought to continue the appeal against acquittal filed by the deceased victim. HELD- A legal heir falls within “victim” under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. and can continue the victim’s appeal under the proviso to Section 372; “prefer an appeal” includes pursuing it. Section 394 cannot cause automatic abatement on the victim’s death. Absence of a corresponding provision for victim’s heirs is discriminatory under Article 14. Appeal restored; leave to continue permitted. |
| 22 | SAW / 347 / 2026 (JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS SHRI HANUMANT SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/04/2026 Landowners sought 25% developed land in lieu of compensation for land acquired in 1969–1975. HELD- Where possession has been taken, compensation deposited and acquisition repeatedly upheld, Sec 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Act, 2013 cannot reopen concluded proceedings or revive stale claims. Petitioners cannot claim that acquisition remains pending or seek 25% developed land. Special Appeals allowed; writ petitions dismissed. |
| 23 | CRLMP / 1469 / 2013 (NISHI MISHRA AND ANR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PP) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/04/2026 Petitioners challenged the use of “benefit of doubt” and “in absence of evidence” in their acquittal. HELD- Where, after full consideration of the prosecution evidence, there is no evidence against the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges, the accused may be described as “honorably acquitted”. The expression is not statutory. “In absence of evidence” was expunged and petitioners were ordered to stand acquitted honorably. |
| 24 | SAW / 288 / 2026 (RAJASTHAN CHESS ASSOCIATION VS ASHOK KUAMR BHARGAVA SON OF LATE SHRI T. N. BHARGAVA) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2026 Petitioner sought to challenge the interim order staying the election and appointing an Administrator. HELD- Under the Rajasthan Sports Act, 2005, Section 16 provides an efficacious remedy for election disputes; hence, Article 226 jurisdiction is almost impermissible except in extraordinary circumstances. An interim order deciding a substantial right is appealable under Rule 134 where it grants final relief. Order set aside and quashed. Pending applications, if any, also disposed of. |
| 25 | CRLMP / 1175 / 2015 (MAHESH TIWARI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/04/2026 Petitioner sought examination of the disputed cheque by a handwriting expert to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act. HELD- Where the accused consistently disputes the signature, denial of expert examination, absent a finding that the request is vexatious or intended to delay proceedings, deprives him of a valuable defence opportunity and affects fair trial under Article 21. Order rejecting Section 45 application quashed; FSL examination directed. Pending applications disposed of. |
| 26 | CW / 4048 / 2026 (SMT. RAMKANWAR D/O SHRI NARAYAN SINGH (W/O LATE SHRI MALU SINGH) VS YADVENDRA SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/04/2026 Petitioner sought stay of execution proceedings during pendency of her appeal, contending that execution of the decree was time barred. HELD- Once an appeal is adjudicated, the Trial Court decree merges into the appellate decree, which becomes the sole operative decree for execution; limitation runs from the appellate decree, notwithstanding absence of stay. Writ petition dismissed; order dated 20.02.2026 upheld. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. |
| 27 | CW / 17903 / 2025 (KAMLESH W/O TEKCHAND VS PAPPU SAINI SON OF DEDARAM SAINI) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/04/2026 Petitioners sought permission to lead secondary evidence of an insufficiently stamped photocopy and to impound it under Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act. HELD- An insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted even in secondary evidence to bypass the statutory bar; foundational requirements must be satisfied, and a photocopy cannot be impounded in the absence of the original instrument. Both writ petitions dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. |
| 28 | SAW / 308 / 2026 (SINGARI, W/O LATE SHRI BHAGWANARAM, D/O JALURAM, VS CHUNKI DEVI WIDOW OF HADMANARAM,) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/04/2026 Petitioner sought to challenge remand to the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) for deciding the first appeal on merits. HELD- Where the first appellate authority has not adjudicated factual and legal issues, including limitation, parties cannot be deprived of the statutory first appeal by deciding merits at the second appellate stage. Though Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 confers wide powers on the Board, the appellate hierarchy cannot be bypassed. Special Appeal dismissed. |
| 29 | CW / 11863 / 2025 (KARAN LRS OF SMT. BHAMA DEVI W/O SHRI THANESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/04/2026 Petitioner sought to challenge dismissal of OA No. 316/2021 claiming retirement benefits, family pension and compassionate appointment. HELD- A subsequent OA is barred by res judicata/constructive res judicata where the earlier OA attained finality and was not challenged, amended or withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to seek declaration of civil death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act and pursue further remedies. |
| 30 | CW / 2794 / 2017 (SMT NEELAM GEHLOT VS DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILD ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/02/2026 Petitioner challenged treatment of her absence from 04.08.1990 to 29.08.2011 as dies-non, alleging violation of natural justice and improper appreciation of her medical absence. HELD- In disciplinary matters, writ jurisdiction is limited; absence not satisfactorily justified or regularised under Rule 86 RSR, and no violation of Rules or natural justice being found, treatment of the period as dies-non was upheld. Writ petition dismissed. Pending application, if any, also 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
