CW / 2899 / 2024 (M/S GRAIN ENERGY PVT. LTD. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/02/2025 Petitioner challenged the rejection of a refund claim for interest paid due to technical glitches in the Customs ECL system. HELD: Refund denial was inconsistent with Section 27 and Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. Technical issues persisted until 27.07.2023, as certified by D.G. Systems. Impugned order dated 21.11.2023 quashed; respondents directed to refund the interest amount within three months. Petition allowed.
2
CRLMP / 5484 / 2024 (IRFAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/01/2025 Petitioner challenged the order rejecting his request for a fresh forensic sample from the seized contraband in an NDPS case. HELD: The trial court's refusal violated principles of fair trial. In ensuring a fresh forensic examination, the prosecution’s burden to establish guilt beyond doubt is more effectively discharged. A fresh 10g sample to be drawn under judicial supervision and sent to FSL. The FSL directed to submit the report within 30 days. Impugned order quashed. Petition allowed.
3
CRLMP / 9230 / 2024 (JEETMAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/01/2025 Petitioners challenged dismissal of their criminal appeal for non-prosecution. HELD: Dismissal solely on the grounds of the appellant's or their counsel's non-appearance constitutes a profound miscarriage of justice. Appellate Courts are duty bound to adjudicate criminal appeals on their intrinsic merit, irrespective of the presence or absence of the appellant or their LR. Dismissal of Appeal not in consonance with settled principles of law. Petition allowed.
4
WCP / 732 / 2017 (M/S.ALOK CHITRA MANDIR, CHURU VS HEMANT JAIN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/01/2025 Contempt Petition preferred alleging disobedience of the judgment passed by this court allowing the writ petition. HELD: Despite the recorded findings, the Dep. Comm. proceeded on to affirm the same order which is contemptuous. Purpose of contempt juris. is to uphold dignity of the Courts of law. However, the disobedience might be because of lack of understanding, taking a liberal view, and deems it appropriate to grant a chance to the resp. to rectify the order.
5
CFA / 215 / 2023 (SUNIL VS OSTWAL PHOSCHEM (INDIA) LTD) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/01/2025 Appeal preferred against order passed by the ADJ No.3, Bhilwara, allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. HELD: The main relief as prayed for in the suit in question is for declaration of Khatedari rights and the relief for cancellation of sale deed is an ancillary relief. The finding as recorded by learned Trial Court is totally in consonance with law and does not deserve any interference. The order impugned does not deserve any interference. Appeal dismissed.
1
CW / 807 / 2012 (SARDAR MAL YADAV VS STATE ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2025 Petitioner challenged the delay in concluding departmental inquiry initiated in 2011. HELD: Inquiry was completed in 2014, but no final order was passed, violating Rajasthan Civil Services Rules 1958. Authorities must ensure timely completion of inquiries within six months. In case of lack of proper assistance officer-in-charge shall be made liable for strict disciplinary action. Chief Secretary directed to submit an affidavit on systemic improvements. Matter listed on 10.03.25.
2
CW / 1496 / 2009 (SATTAR KHAN VS ZILA PARISHAD DAUSHA AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/02/2025 Petitioner challenged termination from contractual employment under NREGA, claiming OBC status as a Muslim-Teli. HELD: Official notifications confirm Teli caste, irrespective of religion, falls under OBC. Notification dated 28.08.2009 includes all the persons who are ‘Teli’ by hereditary occupations irrespective of their religion. General mandamus issued to ensure OBC benefits are not denied to eligible Muslim candidates. Petition allowed.
3
CW / 15018 / 2024 (DR. RACHITA MATHUR WIFE OF DR. RISHABH BHARGAWA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/01/2025 Pet. seeks to declare clause “Selection Procedure” under the head of “Other Details” as unconstitutional. HELD: Raj. Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules,1962 regulate the conditions of recruitment for the Raj. Medical Services & the same are enforced & amended under consent of Governor. It is made unambiguous that the amendment to the Rules of 1962 shall have a retrospective effect. 10% weightage to the interview be applicable qua the selection process. Petition allowed.
4
CRLMP / 4342 / 2024 (NARENDRA KUMAR SONI SON OF NAVRANG PRASAD, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/01/2025 Petitioner assailing the order passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota, rejecting the application partly u/s 91 CrPC HELD: Principles of natural justice are integral part of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of the electronic record, which is admissible u/s 65-A & 65-B IEA, would amount to miscarriage of justice. Petition partly allowed.
5
CRLA / 516 / 1991 (SHANKER LAL S/O BALU RAM VS STATE OF) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/11/2024 Appellant assailing the judgment passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Jaipur, convicting the appellant u/s 161 IPC & u/s 5(1)(d) r.w. S. 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. HELD: Statement of the witnesses & exhibited docs not signed by the presiding officers. Non compliance of provision of S. 313 CrPC would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless material prejudice is shown to have been caused to accused. Trial took 5 years & appeal 34 years. Appeal allowed.
6
SAW / 781 / 2023 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS SUKHENDRA PRASAD S/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/07/2024 Appellant (State) assailing the order passed by the ld. Single Judge in the petition filed by the resp. HELD: Literal reading of the order reveals that it was intended to open avenues of further higher education to those who had passed certain courses but had not passed Senior Sec. Examination. Therefore, it is not a case of clarification at all but a subsequent decision taken by the Govt. to draw equivalence for a limited purpose but certainly not for the recruitment purpose.Petition dismissed
