CW / 9 / 2019 (DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, VS BANWARILAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/08/2025 Pet. aggrieved of the judgment passed by the PLA, Hanumangarh in case No.17/2018. HELD: Merely because transport vehicle for the carriage of passengers or goods has been mentioned in the definition of S. 22A(b) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, will not bring the subject matter of imposition of tax within the jurisdiction of PLA for adjudication. Determination and levy of tax by the SG cannot be considered as one of the services under S. 22 A (b) of the Act of 1987. Petition allowed.
2
CRLR / 34 / 2007 (RAIUDDIN VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/07/2025 Pet. aggrieved by the judgment passed by ASJ (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur, acquitting the resp. from the charge u/s 363,366&376 IPC. HELD: No material on record to establish. that girl was below 18. Since the victim left her parents & joined the association of the appellant at her free will, S. 363 IPC is not made out. Statement of 164 Cr.P.C. & statement given during trial making it abundantly clear that the victim was not forced to perform fornication. Petition & appeal dismissed
3
CRLR / 841 / 2025 (FIRM JETHMAL AND SONS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/07/2025 Pet. assailed the dismissal of his appeal u/s 138 NI Act for non-prosecution & the consequential issuance of arrest warrants. HELD: Party should not be prejudiced due to the negligence/misconduct of their legal counsel. Appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed for default but must be decided on merits. The Appellate Court acted mechanically w/o giving proper hearing, violating natural justice principle i.e. audi alteram partem. Impugned order set aside; Revision petition disposed of.
4
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.
5
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.
1
CRLA / 465 / 2001 (STATE VS DHARAM RAJ AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/08/2025 Petitioner (State) preferred appeal against the judgment acquitting Resp. & complainant filed revision petition against it. HELD: The official recording statement was neither specified nor examined by prosecution. DD was not recorded in ques-ans form. Eye witness declared hostile and didn’t support prosecution. The container was recovered from open space. There were no burn injuries on her hand and body. Appeal and petition dismissed.
2
CW / 5608 / 2025 (PURANMAL VERMA S/O HAJARI LAL RAIGAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/07/2025 Pet. challenged his removal from the post of Administrator after completing his tenure as Sarpanch, citing Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. HELD: No Enquiry Officer was appointed, no oral evidence/cross-examination conducted, & no detailed enquiry held. Order based solely on charge-sheet & reply. Removal u/s 38 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 must comply the mandatory procedures of Rule 22, including formal enquiry. Order quashed. Petition disposed of.
3
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.
4
CW / 8440 / 2025 (DHARMENDRA KUMAR BHARDWAJ S/O LATE SHRI BALKISHAN BHARDWAJ VS RAMESH JAIN S/O SHRI KAILASH CHAND) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/06/2025 Pet./landlord sought direction for expeditious disposal of appeal pending since 2023 against eviction order. HELD: Delay despite repeated listings violates timeline u/s 19(8), causing hardship to both landlords & tenants. Right of speedy disposal is intrinsic to Art. 21. Directed Appellate Tribunal to decide the pending appeal within three months. Judgment to be circulated to all Rent Tribunals in Raj. to ensure timely disposal & avoid unnecessary adjournments. Petition disposed.
5
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.
