| 1 |
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 |
CRLR / 1163 / 2014 (LAKSHITA MARKETING VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/06/2025
The petitioners seek reinstatement of the Magistrate’s cognizance orders dated 22.03.2013 in three complaints under Section 138 NI Act, contending that the Sessions Judge erred in quashing them at the threshold without trial on merits. HELD- the Court held the Sessions Judge wrongly quashed cognizance by deciding issues meant for trial. Restored the Magistrate’s orders under Section 138 NI Act and directed the cases to proceed as per law; the impugned order was quashed and set aside. |
| 7 |
CRLR / 1106 / 2006 (MUSHTAQ ALI VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/06/2025
Petitioner seeks to set aside conviction and sentence under Section 223 IPC, claiming he acted in good faith during a power outage and extreme heat, and was not criminally negligent in prisoners’ escape. HELD- the Prosecution failed to prove criminal negligence under Section 223 IPC. Petitioner acted humanely during power outage and heat, with restraints in place, prisoner’s escape was unforeseeable. It was Mere error not criminal negligence. Conviction set aside; petitioner acquitted. |
| 8 |
CRLR / 607 / 2006 (BHANWARU KHAN VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/06/2025
Petitioner seeks to overturn conviction and sentence under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC, claiming he was not the truck driver, evidence was unreliable, and accident was due to joint negligence. HELD- the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was driving the truck or solely negligent. The law requires under Section 304-A IPC death be direct result of accused’s rash act, without contributory negligence. Conviction set aside and petition allowed. |
| 9 |
CRLMP / 2235 / 2025 (MOHAMMAD ABID VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2025
Petitioners seek release from custody and challenge the Executive Magistrate’s unlawful demand for a surety’s character certificate, claiming it was used to deliberately prolong their detention. HELD-Court held the ACP’s demand for a surety’s character certificate was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of power, unsupported by law, liberty is precious. Petition allowed. |
| 10 |
CRLR / 974 / 2014 (MADAN SINGH VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/05/2025
The petitioner prays for quashing the revision court’s order of discharge and restoration of the trial court’s cognizance, contending sanction under Section 197 CrPC. was not required. HELD-The Court held that unlawful detention and assault, being beyond the scope of official duty, do not attract Section 197 CrPC. protection. As the Revision Court erred in requiring sanction, its order was quashed and the matter remanded back to the revisional court. Petition disposed of. |
| 11 |
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. |
| 12 |
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 |
