WMAP / 296 / 2024 (YAGYAJEET SINGH CHAUHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/09/2024 Pet. a renowned National Shooter aggrieved by the order of refusal of Arms license by the Resp. stating that it was danger to public welfare and peace as her family having criminal history. HELD: Observations of Resp. impinges upon Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Art. 14 & 19(1)(g) of Constitution. Rules 36 & 37 of the Arms Rules 2016 provide for grant of arms license to outstanding sports person after fulfilling conditions. The Resp. are directed to grant the license within 10 days
2
CRLMB / 11692 / 2024 (KAMAL KISHORE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/09/2024 Petitioner seeking Bail as falsely charged under sec. 8/21, 8/15, 8/25 of NDPS Act, 1985. HELD: Recovered contrabands below commercial quantity; therefore, finding under section 37 NDPS Act is not Sine qua non for granting bail. Bail rejection order passed in a casual manner as date of incident/arrest not mentioned. Due to multiplicity of such cases, Registrar directed to place copy of the order before Chief Justice for issuing circular in this regard.
3
CRLMP / 776 / 2018 (MADANLAL PAREEK VS STATE AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR under section 406 and 420 of IPC. HELD: Advancement of money as loan is not a clear case of entrustment & hence, no criminal breach of trust. Inability to return loan amount without any fraudulent or dishonest intention at the beginning of transaction is not cheating. No offence u/s 406, 420 IPC made out. FIR quashed. Petition allowed.
4
CW / 5899 / 2024 (PRATEEK SHARMA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/04/2024 The petitioner assailed the cancellation of his transfer order after joining the new position. Held:- The attempt to cancel the transfer was seen as an effort to circumvent the model code of conduct, which prohibits transfers during certain periods. Once an employee has joined the transferred position, the transfer order is considered executed and cannot be withdrawn. The impugned order not maintainable and set aside. Petition allowed
5
CW / 4031 / 2024 (CHAMPALAL SWAMI VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/03/2024 The petitioner was aggrieved by the recovery of funds that had been granted to him after his retirement. HELD: The benefit stated to have been erroneously conferred to the petitioner lasted for as long as nine years, which is more than 5 years as mentioned in para -18 sub clause (ii) of the Rafiq masih judgment. Order is set aside. Petition allowed
6
CW / 9571 / 2008 (KESRA RAM VS STATE AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2024 Petitioner assailed the order denying reimbursement of medical expenses for treatment at a private hospital. HELD: Right to health by medical treatment in an emergency is akin to Right of life u/Art. 21 of Constitution. Pet. had right to seek emergency medical treatment without having to wait for prior sanction or waiting his turn in a Govt. hospital or an authorised hospital instead of rushing to private hospital. Pet. allowed
1
CW / 13968 / 2024 (M/S LAXMIPRAKASH GARMENTS PVT. LTD VS BAJRANG SINGH RATHORE S/O BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/09/2024 Petitioner assailing impugned order which allowed the impleadment of parties under Order 1 Rule 10.
HELD: Respondent company after selling estate to Pet. approached NCLT to be declared insolvent. If declared insolvent & dispute decided in favour of workman, issue of compliance of award would arise though to be decided by labour Court. No error in impugned order. Petition dismissed.
2
CW / 1458 / 2022 (RAVI JOSHI S/O LATE SHRI OM PRAKASH JOSHI VS MAHARISHI DAYANAND SARASWATI UNIVERSITY) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/09/2024 Petitioner suspended on the grounds that he was under judicial custody for more than 48 hours & requests to set aside the impugned order of suspension. HELD: The prolonged suspension for 3 years not justified as no chargesheet submitted, and is thus, contradictory to the Rule of Law and violates Article 21. No suspension order is extendable beyond 3 months subject to chargesheet not served. Petition allowed.
3
CW / 508 / 2011 (KANTHI KUMAR AGARWAL VS UNION OF INDIA ANDORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2024 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed for dismissal of grant of mining lease. HELD: Petitioner seeked extension of time for removal of deficiencies which dictates that the notice was duly served contradictory to the claim of pet. Notice to provide opportunity of hearing was also sent thus, proper opportunity for removal of deficiencies were given. Hence, rejection by Revisional Authority is rightly done. Writ Petition dismissed.
4
SAW / 659 / 2015 (BRAJ MOHAN SINGH BARETH VS STATE AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/09/2024 Appellant impugned the order withholding his 100% pension due to departmental inquiry. HELD: Under Rule 170 RSR 1951, to withhold pension fully or in part, the grave misconduct has to be proved during the service period, but nothing recorded by Enquiry officer/Competent Authority. Appellant being 90 yrs of age & deprived of pension for last 24 yrs is entitled to 50% of pension which he would have earned & full pension from the date of this order. Petition partly allowed.
5
HC / 254 / 2024 (KUSUM LATA DAUGHTER OFSHRI SITARAM JONWAL WIDOW OF SHRI LALARAM BAIRWA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2024 Habeas Corpus petition filed by pet. with regard to illegal detention of her minor son (age 1.5 yrs) & seeking his custody, who is in custody of his grandparents. Held: Pet. natural guardian of child u/s 6 of Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1955 & can take care of his welfare & bright future being well-educated & a school lecturer. Directions: resp. to hand over custody of minor child to pet.-mother in court itself & police to ensure their safety. Petition allowed.
6
CUSTA / 2 / 2022 (COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM VS M/S TRADEWELL,) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/08/2024 Appeal filed against order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in creation of demand for undervalued blanket & paper cup machines to evade customs duty. Held: As per s. 130-E, appeal with regard to determination of rate of duty or valuation of goods for purpose of assessment, lie to SC. Proposed substantial question of law relates to valuation of goods for purpose of assessment, hence appeal is not maintainable. Appeal dismissed.
7
CW / 650 / 2024 (VEDRAM SON OF RAMSINGH VS RAMROOP SON OF GIRRAJ) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/04/2024 Petitioners aggrieved by dismissal of their injunction suit and subsequent appeals. Held:- The land has been lying unutilized for long and no cultivation was done. As per Khasra girdavari, cultivating possession of petitioners not proved. Scope of interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. No legal error in the impugned order. Writ Pet. dismissed.