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.
2
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.
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
CW / 11932 / 2025 (MS. TEEJA DEVI VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/06/2025 Pet. seeks direction to terminate the pregnancy of minor daughter victim of rape, u/s 3 & 5 of MTP Act, 1971. HELD: The pregnant woman has the autonomy over her body & it is only she who has right to choose whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. So, this Court is of the opinion that since the daughter of the present pet. is unwilling to abort the child, therefore, the consent of the pregnant women prevails over the consent given by her guardian. Petition disposed.
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
CW / 8849 / 2025 (SUO MOTO - IN RE - IN THE MATTER OF GRIEVANCE OF THE GIRLS STAYING IN BALIKA GRAH VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/05/2025 Court takes suo motu cognizance on letter from Balika Grah girls over lack of aid, protection, identity documents, and aftercare support after leaving care. Held – The Court found that Care Leavers face financial, housing, identity, and mental health issues despite existing laws, and stressed need for structured aftercare and policy reforms. Matter referred to Chief Justice for listing before appropriate Bench.
3
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.
4
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.
5
CW / 696 / 2002 (M/S ASSOCIATED ALCOHOLS AND BR VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2025 The petitioner challenged the 1997 notification imposing storage fees on liquor in bonded warehouses, claiming it lacked legal backing under the Rajasthan Excise Act and Rules. HELD- the Court upheld the storage fee under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, holding it as a valid regulatory levy. It ruled that the State can prescribe such fees via notification. Petitions were dismissed as the notification was not ultra vires or illegal.
