Reportable Judgments - Jodhpur
| Sr. No | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | CW / 3103 / 2007 (BALRAM VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/10/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the dismissal order for alleged unauthorized absence from duty. HELD- The inquiry substantially complied with Rule 16 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules, 1958. Past absences did not constitute double jeopardy, as dismissal rested on the separately charged ten-day absence. The medical explanation remained unsubstantiated, and no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out. |
| 2 | SOSA / 1733 / 2026 (MONU MOHAMMED VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2026 The appellants sought suspension of sentence pending appeal, raising a plea of private defence. HELD-Whether the force used exceeded permissible limits must be assessed in the context of imminent danger, the circumstances of the occurrence and the injuries sustained, not the ultimate consequence alone. The arguable issues warranted reappraisal in appeal; the sentences were suspended. |
| 3 | CW / 8252 / 2015 (AVINASH BHATNAGAR VS RSRTC AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2026 Whether the petitioner could claim compassionate appointment as an Assistant Traffic Inspector after accepting appointment as a Conductor, without objection, and joining service.HELD-Once the petitioner accepted and joined the post offered on compassionate grounds, his right to such appointment stood exercised. His qualifications and the subsequent restoration of the higher post could not entitle him to a second consideration. The writ petition was dismissed. |
| 4 | CW / 9613 / 2010 (SHANTI LAL JAIN VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2026 The petitioner sought to set aside his dismissal from service for financial irregularities on grounds of non-supply of documents and subsequent criminal acquittal. HELD-Non-supply of documents vitiates disciplinary proceedings only if demonstrable prejudice is established. Subsequent criminal acquittal and repayment do not automatically erase independently established misconduct. The findings being evidence-based and dismissal not shockingly disproportionate, the writ petition was dismissed. |
| 5 | CRLA / 613 / 1996 (STATE VS BASANT KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the acquittal of a public servant for offences under Sections 409, 477-A, 467, 468 and 471 IPC due to absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. HELD-Sanction under Section 197 CrPC depends on the connection between the alleged act and official duty. An acquittal warrants interference only upon material legal error, perversity or patent illegality. The State failed to establish such grounds; the appeal was dismissed. |
| 6 | CRLA / 767 / 1999 (STATE VS MAHENDRA SINGH AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the acquittal for cheating by personation, cheating and criminal conspiracy in recruitment. HELD-Documentary discrepancies and suspicion cannot prove impersonation. The prosecution must establish who appeared in the examination and the accused’s connection with the alleged fraud. As the trial court’s view was reasonably possible, the appeal was dismissed. |
| 7 | STR / 21 / 2019 (ASSITANT COMMISSIONER (ANTI EVASION) COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, SRI GANGANAGAR VS M/S KHANDELIYA UDHYOG PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/10/2026 Whether investments in plant and machinery of two industrial units under the same ownership could be clubbed to determine eligibility for concessional tax treatment. HELD-The notification prohibits clubbing investments in different enterprises under the same ownership. As the Revenue failed to establish common business interests, funding or financial flow-back between the units, common ownership alone could not justify clubbing. The six revision petitions were dismissed. |
| 8 | CRLMB / 11335 / 2025 (SHAKOOR KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 Peti.sought bail u/sec 483 BNSS in an NDPS case involving 210 kg of poppy straw, challenging conscious possession, the search officer’s authority, communication of grounds of arrest & prolonged incarceration. HELD-Bail was denied as the material prima facie indicated conscious possession, the sec 42 challenge and plea of non-communication were unsupported by the record, & the twin conditions u/Sec 37 NDPS Act remained unsatisfied; custody alone could not override the statutory bar. |
| 9 | CMA / 2689 / 2026 (SMT. BALJEET KAUR VS SMT. GODAVARI) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, citing her counsel’s death as the cause of absence. HELD-The earlier Order IX Rule 7 application, dismissed for non-prosecution without adjudication on merits, was not conclusive. The petitioner’s absence was bona fide, and she could not be penalized for counsel’s default. The ex-parte decree was set aside qua her, and the suit restored for decision on merits. |
| 10 | CW / 19612 / 2026 (VINOD KUMAR VS RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought to claim three long-jump attempts and a fresh Physical Efficiency Test in police recruitment. HELD- An earlier executive instruction cannot confer a perpetual substantive right after statutory rules intervene and the competent authority prescribes the recruitment procedure. In the absence of a prescribed entitlement or established procedural irregularity, adverse weather, disputed measurement or alleged foul did not warrant a fresh test. The writ petitions were dismissed. |
| 11 | CRLR / 1603 / 2026 (ISHWAR SINGH @ HARIOM SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought transfer from Central Jail, Bharatpur, to a prison nearer his home district. HELD- A prisoner's convenience cannot override security requirements; however, family hardship and access to legal counsel deserve consideration where a suitable alternative exists. Considering the peculiar circumstances, transfer to District Jail, Bhilwara, was directed without affecting the pending trial. |
| 12 | CW / 17036 / 2026 (LAL CHAND BALAI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought to set aside his suspension on the ground that the order was issued by an incompetent authority despite the earlier quashing of his suspension. HELD-The Board of Directors was competent to suspend the petitioner under the applicable Regulations. As the Board itself had taken the decision, its communication by the Managing Director did not render the order invalid. No jurisdictional error or mala fides were established; the writ petition was dismissed. |
| 13 | CRLR / 1070 / 2023 (KALU RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the framing of a charge under Section 307 IPC based on a subsequent medical opinion describing an injury as dangerous to life. HELD-The medical classification of an injury cannot substitute for the requisite intention or knowledge to commit murder. As the material, even if accepted at face value, disclosed no sufficient factual basis for inferring such mens rea, the Section 307 IPC charge was quashed; the remaining charges were maintained. |
| 14 | CRLMP / 8827 / 2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/10/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings for forgery and use of a forged medical certificate. HELD- Investigative material casting serious doubt on the certificate's genuineness and the circumstances of its procurement and use raised triable issues regarding the petitioner's knowledge or reason to believe it was forged. The proceedings could not be terminated at the threshold. |
| 15 | CMA / 1721 / 2025 (THE CHIEF ENGINEER (WEST) VS M/S. MITHARWAL BROTHERS) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2026 The appellants sought to challenge the rejection of their objections to an arbitral award directing refund of contractual deductions with interest. HELD-Interference under Section 37 is confined to the grounds available under Section 34. A plausible interpretation of the contract and evidence cannot be substituted merely because another view is possible. As no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error was established, the appeal was dismissed. |
| 16 | ITA / 183 / 2014 (C.I.T.-UDAIPUR VS M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2026 Whether power generation qualified for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) and revision of the assessment was justified under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. HELD-Additional depreciation was allowable on qualifying new plant and machinery. Revision under Section 263 requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. As neither condition was established, the ITAT rightly set aside the revisional order. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed. |
| 17 | SAW / 677 / 2023 (INDER SINGH RAJPUROHIT VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the grant of permission for a competing petrol outlet on grounds of alleged violation of governmental guidelines, without establishing infringement of any vested or legal right. HELD- Mere commercial rivalry or consequential business prejudice does not confer locus standi under Article 226. Absent infringement of a legally protected right, the rival competitor is not an aggrieved person and the writ petition is not maintainable. |
| 18 | CW / 21823 / 2026 (BUDH DAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge Section 24(iii) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.HELD-The provision does not violate Articles 14 and 21. Cognizance and framing of charges for offences punishable with imprisonment of five years or more provide objective judicial safeguards, rationally linked to curbing criminalization of local democracy. Sections 24(i) and 24(iii) operate at distinct stages and are not discriminatory. |
| 19 | CRLA / 413 / 1999 (STATE VS MANGILAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the acquittal for voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt. HELD-Minor discrepancies do not warrant acquittal when the core prosecution case remains intact. Evidence must be assessed cumulatively. The acquittal under Section 325 IPC was set aside and conviction recorded, while acquittal under Section 323 IPC was maintained. The accused was released on probation. |
| 20 | CW / 1740 / 2024 (UPENDRA KAPOOR VS SMT. VANDANA) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the impleadment of subsequent purchasers in pending eviction proceedings. HELD- Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, purchasers acquiring an interest during pending proceedings may be impleaded; however, impleadment does not automatically transfer the original landlord’s personal necessity or establish entitlement to eviction. The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the eviction grounds for independent adjudication |
| 21 | CRLAD / 104 / 2023 (SURENDRA KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/09/2026 The petitioner sought renewal of his passport despite a conviction under Section 302 IPC and a pending criminal appeal. HELD- Section 6(2) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 operates independently of Section 6(2)(f). The exemption for pending criminal proceedings cannot be extended to a qualifying conviction involving moral turpitude in the absence of a corresponding relaxation. The application was dismissed. |
| 22 | CRLAS / 1107 / 2019 (BHERA RAM @ BHERU LAL VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/09/2026 The appellants sought the benefit of probation instead of substantive imprisonment. HELD-Considering the appellants’ first-offender status, absence of previous convictions, the 2014 occurrence, acquittal on graver charges and prolonged proceedings, the Court granted probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The convictions and fine remained intact. |
| 23 | CRLMA / 386 / 2026 (GANGA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/09/2026 The petitioner sought recall of an order disposing of his FIR-quashing petition on the premise that cognizance had been taken. HELD- Recall was warranted as the order rested on a factual premise appearing inconsistent with the trial court’s order-sheet, and the substantive grounds had never been adjudicated. The original petition was restored for decision on merits. |
| 24 | CMA / 3400 / 2024 (SARASWATI VS AMIT) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/09/2026 Whether a divorce decree could be set aside following the parties’ voluntary reconciliation during appeal. HELD-The Court held that subsequent events, voluntary settlement and unequivocal consent “cannot be ignored while exercising appellate jurisdiction”. Considering the welfare of the minor girl and the parties’ wish to restore their matrimonial relationship, the Court set aside the decree and restored the marriage as if the decree had not intervened. |
| 25 | CW / 11160 / 2025 (JAKHAR TRAVELS VS BHANWAR LAL CHOUDHARY) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/09/2026 Whether a non-party could appeal against an injunction affecting his claimed interest in the property, and whether a rent agreement alone established possession. HELD-The execution of such an agreement and actual delivery of possession are two distinct factual aspects. Finding no patent illegality, jurisdictional transgression or manifest perversity, the Court dismissed the writ under Article 227, leaving title and tenancy questions open for adjudication by the competent forum. |
| 26 | CW / 4420 / 2026 (HIMMATA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/09/2026 The petitioner challenged the notification naming the new revenue village “Jadam Nagar”, alleging violation of the circular dated 20.08.2009 prohibiting names based on a person, religion, caste or sub-caste. HELD-The Court found no violation of the circular and rejected as unjustified the alleged link with the former Sarpanch’s brother. The notification was upheld and the writ petition dismissed. |
| 27 | SAW / 1800 / 2025 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS RAJENDRA SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/09/2026 The petitioner challenged the denial of appointment as a Primary School Teacher despite acquittal in a criminal case involving offences of moral turpitude. HELD-The employer must assess the relevant facts and antecedents. As no evidence linked the petitioner to the alleged offences, the acquittal was for lack of evidence, not reasonable doubt. The direction to issue appointment was upheld. |
| 28 | CW / 5128 / 2026 (APOORVA AGRAWAT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/09/2026 The petitioner sought protection of Jawai leopard habitat and regulation of construction and tourism. HELD- As unrestricted construction could cause irreversible habitat damage and no comprehensive scientific policy existed, the Court adopted 1 km as an interim protective zone, supported by scientific material and the State’s existing policy. It was not permanent and could be revised after scientific assessment. Copy of judgment be circulated. All pending applications stand disposed of. |
| 29 | CW / 6350 / 2026 (DURGA SHANKAR ALIAS DURGESH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/09/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of orders directing sealing/demolition of constructions in the Sajjangarh Eco-Sensitive Zone. HELD- Deemed permission under general development law cannot override express environmental restrictions under the 13.02.2017 Notification and Zonal Master Plan. Precautionary principle and Public Trust Doctrine require environmental protection to prevail over private interest; investment or parity cannot legitimise unauthorised construction. Writ petitions dismissed. |
| 30 | CRLMB / 6014 / 2026 (NAND KISHORE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/08/2026 The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 BNSS, alleging that the night search without warrant violated Section 42 NDPS Act. HELD- A night search without warrant is permissible where the officer records reasons showing that delay may lead to escape or concealment and communicates the information as required. Here, prima facie compliance was shown. Since commercial quantity was recovered, Section 37 barred bail absent reasonable grounds of innocence; application dismissed. |
| 31 | CW / 20918 / 2026 (SMT. NIKITA VS RAJU SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/08/2026 Petitioners sought registration of a suit for permanent injunction, challenging valuation on market value as a declaratory suit merely because title by adverse possession was pleaded. HELD- Pleading accrued title by adverse possession does not itself constitute declaratory relief; the plaint must be read as a whole. Threshold scrutiny cannot become a mini-trial on title or adverse possession. Order quashed; plaint to be registered and injunction application considered. Writ petition allowed. |
| 32 | CW / 20557 / 2026 (HARISH KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2026 Petitioners challenged the municipal reservation lottery. HELD- Declaration and publication of the election programme marked commencement of the election process, attracting the constitutional bar under Article 243-ZG against judicial interference in municipal elections. The writ petitions challenging the reservation process were dismissed without adjudication on the merits of the reservation dispute. |
| 33 | CW / 17948 / 2019 (KUNDAN MAL VS NARPAT SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2026 Petitioners sought setting aside of the order permitting Defendant No.1 to amend his written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC after framing of issues but before commencement of evidence. HELD- Amendment elaborating an existing defence may be allowed where it aids complete adjudication, does not alter the suit’s nature or introduce a destructive defence, and causes no irreparable prejudice. Article 227 interference was unwarranted. Writ petition dismissed; impugned order affirmed. |
| 34 | CW / 8961 / 2022 (BABU MOHAMMED PANWAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 and continuation of disciplinary proceedings after his death. HELD-Disciplinary proceedings, being personal to the delinquent, cannot continue after his death where no final penalty was imposed in his lifetime. Charge-sheet and consequential proceedings quashed; retiral benefits to be considered; pending applications disposed of. |
| 35 | CW / 18956 / 2019 (BANWARI LAL JHURIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/08/2026 Petitioners challenged enhanced mining demands. HELD-Substantial enhancement of alleged illegal excavation and financial liability without disclosure of audit material, calculations and methodology, or a meaningful opportunity to contest the revised assessment, violated natural justice. The demand notices were quashed; the merits of illegal excavation and correctness of quantities were left open for fresh proceedings in accordance with law. |
| 36 | CFA / 221 / 2026 (DEVARAM VS KHETARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/08/2026 Appellant sought declaration of his 1/9th coparcenary share and cancellation of sale deeds concerning agricultural land inherited by his father under Section 8 HSA. HELD- Inheritance by the father under Section 8 does not confer a birthright on the son absent pleaded HUF/coparcenary character. The foundational khatedari right also required declaration by the competent revenue court before consequential relief. Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment affirmed. |
| 37 | CW / 8018 / 2026 (SMT. DEU BAI VS LALURAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/08/2026 Petitioner sought to place the original FSL/handwriting expert report on record under Order VIII Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC. HELD- Evidence may prove a pleaded case but cannot supply a material factual foundation absent from the pleadings. As authorship of the signatures was not disputed, the report introduced a new factual issue and lacked nexus with the defence; its existence since 2017 was also unexplained. Article 227 interference unwarranted, Writ dismissed; order affirmed. |
| 38 | CW / 15836 / 2021 (TARA RANI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/08/2026 Petitioners sought protection against demolition/dispossession for road widening under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 and Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. HELD-The Master Plan may be implemented in public interest, but not without notice, hearing and reasoned orders. If valid title is established and the land is required, compensation or alternative land must be considered. Authorities may proceed after deciding objections; writ petitions disposed of. |
| 39 | CW / 17014 / 2026 (RIDDHAM DEORA VS THE UNIION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/08/2026 Minor sought passport for study abroad without his divorced father’s consent. HELD-Right to travel abroad forms part of Article 21. A passport cannot be refused mechanically merely because the father’s consent or a specific custody order is absent. Under Annexure-C of Schedule III to the Passport Rules, 1980, a passport may be issued without both parents’ consent upon submission of the prescribed affidavit. Writ petition allowed; passport directed to be issued forthwith. |
| 40 | CMA / 2506 / 2026 (SHRI VISHWAKARMA JANGID SAMAJ SAMITI, PALI VS RAMCHANDRA PIDWA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/08/2026 Appellant challenged the Trial Court’s order transferring the Society’s management, properties and records to the ADM under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. HELD-An interim injunction must preserve the existing position, not create a new one or indirectly grant mandatory/receivership relief. The Trial Court could not displace existing management without a prayer or exceptional circumstances warranting Order XL intervention. CMA-2032/2026 allowed; CMA-2506/2026 dismissed. |
| 41 | CW / 12364 / 2024 (SHRI HARSH GEHANI VS SHRI HARJEET SINGH GUJRAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/08/2026 Petitioners challenged the stay of an eviction decree and the fixation of interim mesne profits under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, particularly whether Rs.1 lakh per month was justified. HELD- Appellate Court may impose reasonable interim mesne profits while staying eviction, but the amount must reflect the premises' rental potential, not conjecture. Rs.1 lakh reduced to Rs.50, 000, other stay conditions upheld; pending applications disposed of. |
| 42 | CW / 16753 / 2026 (SAACHI MINOCHA VS NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/08/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of her debarment from the VI Semester examination for shortage of attendance. HELD-Rule 1.7(D) of the NLU Jodhpur Rules of Examination mandates that a student unable to take the end-term examination on medical grounds shall be allowed to appear in the repeat examination as a first attempt. The Rule prescribes neither a one-time limit nor a separate minimum-attendance condition; such restrictions could not be imported into the Rule. Writ petition allowed. |
| 43 | CMA / 1748 / 2024 (LRS OF LATE SMT. RASAL KANWAR VS LRS OF LATE LAXMAN SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/08/2026 Petitioners sought initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging that Ex.A34, an adoption deed, was forged. HELD- Section 340 requires a reasonable foundation for the alleged offence and expediency in the interests of justice. Though pendency of the substantive suit is not an absolute bar, no exceptional circumstances warranted criminal proceedings before adjudication of the document’s genuineness. The appeal was dismissed; the issue was left open for the trial Court. |
| 44 | CW / 18805 / 2024 (M/S SHREE VINAYAK HOTELS AND RESORTS VS DESERT TULIP HOTEL AND RESORTS PVT. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/08/2026 The petitioner challenged the return of its Section 18 petition to the Commercial Court. HELD- Sections 18(1) and 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Rent Tribunal, attracting the bar under Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Commercial use of leased premises does not, by itself, make the dispute commercial u/Sec 2(1) (c) (vii); the pith and substance of the real controversy is determinative. Petition allowed & case remitted back. |
| 45 | CW / 12432 / 2026 (AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/08/2026 Petitioner-Bank challenged police charges demanded for Section 14 SARFAESI assistance under the 03.02.2026 executive circular. HELD- the State may levy such charges, but Sections 46 and 2(m) of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 require rates to be prescribed by Rules. Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 2008 governs; an executive circular cannot override or amend it. Until Rule 10 is lawfully amended, demands exceeding its rates are without authority of law and stand quashed. |
| 46 | CW / 9549 / 2026 (MADNA RAM VS RESERVE BANK OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/08/2026 Petitioners sought quashing of freezing of bank accounts in cyber-fraud cases for want of prior notice. HELD- Freezing is a preventive measure to preserve suspected proceeds; given the speed of cyber fraud, prior notice may defeat its purpose. The restraint must remain proportionate and subject to periodic review under the SOP. Writ petitions without exhausting prescribed remedies were premature; liberty was granted to approach afresh in exceptional cases. The petitions were disposed of. |
| 47 | CW / 24714 / 2025 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS BHANWAR LAL JAIN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/08/2026 Petitioner-State sought quashing of the Permanent Lok Adalat’s award granting service benefits from initial appointment. HELD-Its jurisdiction is confined to public utility services under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. “Any party to a dispute” in Section 22C must be read within that framework and does not confer unrestricted jurisdiction. A service-benefit dispute falls outside Section 22A(b); hence the award was without jurisdiction and was quashed. |
| 48 | CW / 10655 / 2026 (SHAITAN SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/08/2026 Petitioner sought cancellation of Respondent No.5’s mining lease, alleging violation of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 through a partnership arrangement. HELD- Even if Rule 27 was violated, a person who is neither the lessee nor licencee does not thereby acquire an enforceable right to seek cancellation. As the grievance arose from a contractual arrangement involving disputed facts, the writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed. |
| 49 | CMA / 1595 / 2026 (M/S ALISHAN COMPLEX PRIVATE LIMITED VS THE INITIATING OFFICER) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/08/2026 The appellant challenged the finding of benami ownership based on a retracted third-party statement, without cross-examination, despite subsequent Income-tax assessment. HELD-The Initiating Officer must establish the twin ingredients of a benami transaction by cogent evidence. A retracted foundational statement cannot sustain an adverse finding without cross-examination at the adjudicatory stage; denial violates natural justice. Orders set aside; matter remanded; appeal disposed of. |
| 50 | CMA / 2558 / 2012 (BHOMA RAM AND ORS. VS BHANWAR SINGH AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/07/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the remand of a civil suit after closure of the plaintiffs’ evidence. HELD-Mere availability of several hearing dates does not constitute an effective opportunity to lead evidence. Considering the plaintiffs’ earlier efforts, the procedural delays and the defendant’s right to lead evidence, the limited remand with costs and strict timelines was upheld. The appeal was dismissed. |
| 51 | CW / 6603 / 2026 (RAJENDRA SAHU VS THE HIGH COURT OF JUCICATURE) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/07/2026 Petitioner sought Quashing of suspension, contending that High Court lacked competence and Rule 13 could not apply merely on preliminary inquiries. HELD- Article 235 vests disciplinary control in the High Court; “contemplated” proceedings are distinct from “pending” proceedings, and a formal charge-sheet is not necessary. Six preliminary inquiries into serious allegations sufficed to contemplate disciplinary proceedings. Petition dismissed. Pending applications, if any, disposed of. |
| 52 | CRLMP / 532 / 2017 (JAI RAJ AND ORS VS STATE AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/07/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings and charge orders, contending that prosecution could not rest on designation without material showing direct responsibility, consent, connivance or neglect. HELD- Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely by designation. Without material showing responsibility or culpable conduct, contradictory scientific evidence and no fresh material connecting him, continuation of prosecution was an abuse of process. Pending applications, if any, disposed of. |
| 53 | CSA / 36 / 2026 (URJARAM VS RIKA RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/07/2026 The appellants sought to challenge the concurrent decrees for specific performance on grounds of errors in factual findings and appreciation of evidence.HELD- Section 100 CPC does not permit reappreciation of evidence merely to substitute one possible view for another. Interference with concurrent findings requires a substantial question of law or a legally recognised ground, such as perversity or manifest illegality. None was established; the second appeal was dismissed. |
| 54 | CRLMP / 3378 / 2026 (RAJENDRA KUMAR @ SURAJMAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/07/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the order directing further investigation, alleging that the Magistrate prescribed its manner. HELD- A Magistrate may direct further investigation under Section 193(9) BNSS, but its mode and manner remain with the investigating agency. Here, the Magistrate only recorded investigative deficiencies and gave no point-wise directions; the reasoned order was lawful. Petition dismissed; further investigation to proceed independently. |
| 55 | SAW / 205 / 2026 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS MANOHAR SINGH NARAWAT) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/07/2026 Petitioner sought Challenge to appointment of recommended candidates, contending that Selection Committee’s recommendation was advisory. HELD- Once candidates are recommended in order of merit under Rule 6(10), the State’s role under Rule 6(11) is limited to verification of credentials and antecedents; absent a valid impediment, it cannot withhold appointment. Such withholding defeats the statutory scheme and legislative intent. Appeals dismissed. Pending applications, if any, disposed of. |
| 56 | CRLMP / 5300 / 2022 (MANOJ MACHARA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/07/2026 Whether an inadvertent official lapse, absent willful disobedience or mala fide intent, attracts criminal liability under Section 173 IPC. HELD- Criminal liability cannot rest on mere negligence or inadvertence; the conduct must transcend such lapse and show deliberate defiance or conscious disobedience. The petitioner’s omission arose from official exigencies and disclosed no requisite mens rea. Cognizance quashed; proceedings terminated; pending applications disposed of. |
| 57 | CW / 6442 / 2016 (BHARAT KUMAR AND ANR VS SHYAM SUNDER SOLANKI AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/07/2026 The petitioners sought eviction to start an independent business dealing in stitching machines, electronic goods and gifts. HELD-Working in a family business does not establish suitable independent commercial accommodation or negate bona fide need. A landlord need not remain unemployed during litigation. The tribunals’ erroneous approach warranted interference under Article 227, and both impugned orders were set aside. |
| 58 | CW / 12429 / 2015 (KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/07/2026 Petitioner-Bank sought quashing of the seizure and auction of its hypothecated vehicle for recovery of the owner’s motor vehicle dues. HELD- Section 13-A permits attachment and sale of the movable property of the person liable, not merely the vehicle against which dues arose. Mere hypothecation, without actual possession or overriding statutory priority, did not defeat recovery; separate notice to the financier was not a statutory precondition. Writ dismissed. |
| 59 | CMA / 2252 / 2026 (BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. VS M/S RAJ SOLUTIONS (INDIA) LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/07/2026 Appellant-BSNL sought restoration of its Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court, Udaipur. HELD- Party autonomy required Clauses 17(3) and 19 to be harmoniously construed: Jaipur was the place for conducting arbitration, while Udaipur was expressly chosen as the jurisdictional forum. Conducting arbitration at Jaipur did not make it the juridical seat or override Clause 19. Appeal allowed; application restored. |
| 60 | CW / 24552 / 2025 (SATYANARAYAN SINGH RAJPUROHIT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/06/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of the notification dated 13.12.2025 creating Revenue Village “Khichan Vistar”, alleging breach of norms, mala fide and political influence. HELD-Creation of a revenue village u/Sec16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is an administrative decision. Distance criterion was satisfied; Khasra adjacency did not invalidate distance findings. No mala fide, colourable exercise or statutory violation was proved. Writ dismissed; pending applications disposed of. |
| 61 | CW / 16603 / 2025 (SMT. HARU VS GAINARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/06/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of the Board of Revenue’s order remanding her application under Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for a way through respondents’ land. HELD-Rule 69 mandates inviting and considering objections to the site-inspection report. Mere notice of inspection is insufficient. Non-compliance violates natural justice and constitutes material irregularity under Section 230, justifying revisional interference. Writ dismissed; matter remanded to SDO. |
| 62 | CMA / 1242 / 2022 (M/S R.P.S. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2026 The appellant challenged the setting aside of the arbitral award as time-barred. HELD- The Commercial Court erred in treating 20.03.2008 as the final date of cause of action without considering the parties’ correspondence, which showed that efforts to resolve the dispute continued until 2010. The claim filed on 10.05.2012 was within three years. The appeal was allowed; the Section 34 application was remanded for decision on merits, treating the claim as within limitation. |
| 63 | SAW / 769 / 2023 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DALPAT SINGH CHUNDAWAT) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2026 The respondents challenged cancellation of their mining LOIs and Prospecting Licence. HELD- Neither an LOI nor a PL conferred an indefeasible right to a mining lease. The 2021 amendment applied to pending cases under Section 10A(2)(b), causing PL-based rights to lapse. LOI holders failed to secure lease execution by 11 January 2017. The State’s appeals were allowed, the Single Judge’s orders set aside, and the writ petitions dismissed. Eligible parties may seek statutory reimbursement. |
| 64 | SAW / 797 / 2023 (PUBLIC ROSE SHIKSHA SAMITI (BABA KAMALDAS LIVESTOCK ASSISTAINT DIPLOMA TRAINING COLLEGE) VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2026 The appellants sought NOCs for Livestock Assistant Diploma Training Institutes, alleging discrimination and seeking consideration under the earlier policy. HELD- A pending application creates no vested right to the policy in force when filed. Applying Policy-2022 to pending applications was not retrospective. The State could apply a revised, uniform policy before an enforceable right crystalized; Article 14 does not permit “negative equality” based on conditional. Appeals were dismissed. |
| 65 | CW / 69 / 2026 (LRS. OF PRAKASH ALIAS PRAKASHMAL BHANDARI VS AMRESH KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/05/2026 The petitioner challenged the eviction orders, disputing the landlord–tenant relationship and identity of the premises. HELD- Article 227 does not permit reappreciation of evidence where concurrent findings are plausible and free from perversity or jurisdictional error. Changes in an old tenancy’s description or use do not, by themselves, extinguish it. The writ petition was dismissed; both tribunals’ orders were upheld, and the eviction certificate became executable. |
| 66 | CRLA / 16 / 1999 (STATE VS GAFFAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/05/2026 The State challenged Gaffar’s acquittal under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. HELD- An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; where the Trial Court’s view is plausible, it cannot be displaced merely because another view is possible. The prosecution failed to prove the driver’s identity and criminal rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal was neither perverse nor illegal. The appeal was dismissed and acquittal affirmed. |
| 67 | CMA / 1277 / 2026 (LRS OF LATE SHREE RAMESH CHANDRA PATEL VS CITY PULSE ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/05/2026 The appellants sought restoration of the arbitral award set aside by the Commercial Court on grounds of non-arbitrability and expiry of the Arbitrator’s mandate. HELD- Though the dispute was non-arbitrable under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the respondent waived jurisdictional objection by participating without a Section 16 objection. The Section 29A application could be considered post-award; award restored but remained unenforceable pending its decision. |
| 68 | CW / 23613 / 2025 (GAINWELL SECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the BDA’s decision applying the Rajasthan Township Policy, 2025 to its pending layout plan. HELD- Clause 1.7 is a savings clause; “can be approved” must be read as “shall be approved”, requiring pending applications to be considered under the 2010 Policy. Clause 4.2 conferred no power to enhance the facility area. Decision quashed; layout plan to be processed under the 2010 Policy. |
| 69 | CW / 10439 / 2024 (ARUNA OJHA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2026 Petitioner sought compassionate appointment as the unmarried, dependent sister of the deceased employee. HELD-Eligibility is determined on the date of application, not the date of death. As the amended Rule 2(C) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, was in force when she applied within 90 days, applying it was not retrospective. Writ allowed; rejection set aside and case remitted for fresh consideration within two months, subject to |
| 70 | CW / 10439 / 2024 (ARUNA OJHA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2026 Peti sought compassionate appointment as the unmarried, dependent sister of the deceased. HELD-Eligibility is determined on the date of application, not the date of death. As the amended R 2(C) of the Raj Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, was in force when she applied within 90 days, applying it was not retrospective. Writ allowed; rejection set aside & case remitted for fresh consideration, subject to eligibility & merit. |
| 71 | CW / 13071 / 2024 (M/S GIRI TRANSPORT COMPANY VS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the order rejecting preliminary objections to departmental appeals against the Advance Ruling. HELD- The 90-day period under Section 101(2) is directory; expiry does not extinguish a valid appeal. Appeals were within permissible limitation, both CGST and SGST officers had statutory appellate rights, and manual filing was valid. No natural-justice violation or estoppel arose. Writ petition dismissed. |
| 72 | CRLMP / 4122 / 2021 (MAHENDRA KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2026 The petitioner sought to set aside rejection of his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. HELD- Prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required for FIR registration or investigation; it is relevant at cognizance. The Magistrate’s order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. If the complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences, the Magistrate must refer it to police for FIR and investigation. |
| 73 | CW / 4532 / 2026 (SHRI SHANTI LAL DHOLI VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2026 Petitioner sought release of retiral dues withheld due to an incomplete Service Book. HELD- The department cannot deny benefits because of its own failure to maintain that record. Pension is earned property integral to Article 21; delayed dues attract applicable interest. Writ allowed; dues with interest to be paid within 60 days. State to pay ₹50,000 costs, recoverable from the responsible officer; specified officers’ salaries to be withheld for non-compliance. |
| 74 | SAW / 1162 / 2025 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS CHANDRA PAL SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2026 The appellants sought setting aside of the order of quashing termination of the respondent. HELD- Where appointment itself is founded on alleged fraud or forged documents, Article 311 and the Rules of 1958 are not attracted. However, termination requires minimum natural justice, including disclosure of relied-upon material and effective opportunity to respond. Setting aside termination order of single bench is modified Appeals partly allowed; cases remitted to reconstitute Committee. |
| 75 | CRLAD / 326 / 2025 (VEER SINGH ALIAS BUNTY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2026 The appellants sought setting aside of their convictions under Sections 343 and 376D IPC. HELD- The prosecutrix’s earliest statement contradicted the later FIR, while material improvements, the Investigating Officer’s admissions, lack of medical and forensic corroboration, and absence of independent evidence created reasonable doubt. Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; convictions and sentences set aside and appellants acquitted. |
| 76 | CRLR / 1721 / 2025 (VINAY BAGHLA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of charges under Section 111 BNS for alleged organised crime. HELD- Section 111 requires prima facie material showing an organised crime syndicate, continuing unlawful activity and its nexus with the accused; multiple accused or cyber/financial fraud alone is insufficient. The Trial Court failed to independently examine these ingredients and relied on an unrelated FIR. Charges under Section 111 quashed; petitioners discharged. |
| 77 | CW / 10803 / 2026 (DEVILAL BHEEL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 Petitioner sought compassionate appointment despite a conviction followed by release on probation. HELD-Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act removes conviction-based disqualification, subject to its proviso. Rejecting the claim solely on conviction violated the Act and the State circular. Writ disposed of; rejection set aside and case remitted for fresh consideration without treating probation as a disqualification, subject to eligibility and merit. |
| 78 | CRLMP / 8059 / 2022 (MUKNA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR under Section 379 IPC arising from a dispute over possession and repossession of a financed vehicle. HELD- Theft requires dishonest intention at the time of moving property. The record showed a bona fide contractual dispute, continuing proprietary interest and repossession rights, with no prima facie dishonest intent. Criminal proceedings would abuse process; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed. |
| 79 | CRLW / 2136 / 2026 (SUMANN MUNDHARA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 The petitioner sought completion of the investigation and filing of a report pursuant to the Trial Court’s direction. HELD- A Criminal Court directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. remains duty-bound to supervise its progress and ensure timely conclusion. The Trial Court was directed to ensure filing of the charge-sheet/Final Report within six weeks; on failure, it may pass appropriate orders against the erring officer. The writ petition was disposed of. |
| 80 | CRLA / 313 / 1993 (PURAN SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 The appellant challenged his conviction u/Sec 307 IPC. HELD- The sudden quarrel, absence of premeditation and medical evidence failed to establish the intention or knowledge required for attempt to murder. As voluntarily causing hurt with a sharp-edged weapon was proved, conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC. Imprisonment was reduced to time already undergone; fine of ₹200 and default sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment remained. Appeal partly allowed; warrant recalled |
| 81 | CW / 19314 / 2023 (LAL CHAND VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 Lal Chand sought consideration for appointment as PTI Grade-III. HELD- Mere registration of an FIR does not disqualify a candidate when investigation finds the case false. Clause 1(i) of the Circular applies to cases under investigation or trial, or resulting in conviction; clause 2(i) covers candidates cleared during investigation with a timely Final Report. Writ allowed; respondents directed to consider appointment, subject to vacancy and eligibility. No back wages. |
| 82 | CRLBC / 75 / 2024 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS SMT SEEMA JAKHAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/05/2026 The State sought cancellation of bail granted to the respondent under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the gravity of the offences was not considered. HELD- Cancellation requires post-bail misconduct, violation of conditions or supervening circumstances; an earlier bail order may otherwise be set aside only if illegal or perverse. The State showed none; this Court could not sit in appeal over a Co-ordinate Bench’s order. Application dismissed. |
| 83 | CR / 155 / 2026 (SANDEEP SINGH VS BABITA YADAV) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/05/2026 The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that a title dispute required declaratory relief. HELD- A suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable where the plaint asserts ownership and possession; absence of declaratory relief alone does not bar it. At the Order VII Rule 11 stage, only plaint averments are examined; disputed title and defence cannot be adjudicated. Revision dismissed. |
| 84 | CW / 4437 / 2018 (UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS N.P. ARORA AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/05/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the Tribunal’s order setting aside the charge-sheet and penalty imposed on the respondent for allowing Section 10B exemption. HELD- A mere error in a quasi-judicial order is not misconduct absent mala fide intent, undue favour, lack of integrity or conscious disregard of law. The assessment was a bona fide, plausible view supported by precedent and later upheld by ITAT; disciplinary action was unwarranted. Writ petition dismissed. |
| 85 | CRLA / 631 / 1997 (LILADHAR ALLIAS GATIYA VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/05/2026 The appellant sought alteration of his conviction under Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC. HELD- Section 307 IPC requires intention or knowledge to cause death; mere use of a knife is insufficient. The fatal abdominal injury was not reliably attributed to the appellant, while the only proved injury was simple and did not establish such intention or knowledge. Conviction altered to Section 324 IPC; sentence reduced to period undergone, fine maintained. |
| 86 | CRLR / 46 / 2007 (BAHADUR SINGH VS STATE AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/05/2026 The petitioner sought setting aside of the acquittal of respondent Nos.2 to 4 under Section 436 IPC. HELD- Revisional interference with acquittal is warranted only for manifest perversity, gross illegality or palpable miscarriage of justice. The prosecution failed to reliably establish the accused’s specific overt acts; the Trial Court’s plausible view was supported by evidence. Re-appreciation of evidence was impermissible; revision dismissed. |
| 87 | CRLR / 599 / 2025 (RAKESH SHARMA VS MANJU DEVI) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2026 The petitioner sought modification of maintenance and compensation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. HELD- DV Act jurisdiction is remedial and protective, not a substitute for criminal adjudication; disputed cruelty allegations pending criminal prosecution cannot found compensation. Further, prolonged delay made retrospective maintenance oppressive and contrary to its object of immediate succour. Compensation was set aside and maintenance modified accordingly. |
| 88 | CW / 21163 / 2025 (LAL SINGH CHOUHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the suspension order dated 23.09.2025 for want of jurisdiction. HELD- Suspension is not an unfettered executive power and must be exercised by the authority competent under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The District Education Officer showed no statutory authority to suspend; executive displeasure over social-media comments could not confer such power. Order quashed; reinstatement directed. |
| 89 | CSA / 252 / 2025 (HARI RAM VS CHUNNI DEVI) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the concurrent judgments declaring the adoption deed dated 20.07.2009 void. HELD- A valid adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 requires proof of actual giving and taking of the child; an adoption deed alone is insufficient. The mandatory ceremony and subsequent treatment as adopted son were not proved. No substantial question of law arose; appeal dismissed and decrees affirmed. |
| 90 | CRLMP / 7943 / 2025 (REKHRAJ VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging non-application of mind. HELD- Sanction is a statutory filter requiring conscious consideration of prima facie material, not a mini-trial or detailed appreciation of evidence. The authority considered the allegations, verification and investigation material; elaborate reasons were unnecessary. Sanction upheld; petition dismissed. |
| 91 | CW / 9583 / 2022 (SQN. LDR.C. SINGH (RETD.) VS THE UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal’s orders and grant of two increments in addition to Flying Officer pay under AFI 48/75. HELD- AFI 48/75 entitled an Airman with over eight years’ service to both commission as Flying Officer and two years’ ante-date for pay. The word “and” made these distinct benefits; hence two increments were payable over Rs.2,500/-, making pay Rs.2,700/-. Tribunal orders quashed with consequential benefits. |
| 92 | CRLMP / 1844 / 2025 (LAKSHITA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/05/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings, alleging illegal detention and biased investigation. HELD- Serious violations of arrest safeguards, inconsistent records and missing CCTV footage created a reasonable apprehension of an unfair investigation. As allegations were against the investigating police, investigation was transferred to the CBI despite filing of charge-sheet. Trial proceedings deferred pending CBI report. Pending applications disposed of. |
| 93 | CW / 1724 / 2024 (PRADEEP SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/05/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the orders rejecting their Section 3G (5) applications concerning denial of compensation for standing trees. HELD- A reasoned denial of compensation by CALA constitutes a “determination” under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Disputes over complete denial or undervaluation are arbitrable; the applications were maintainable. Orders quashed and matters remanded for decision on merits. |
| 94 | CSA / 251 / 2025 (LRS OF MAHAVEER SINGH VS NARENDRA SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/05/2026 The appellants sought interference with concurrent findings dismissing their suit for specific performance, cancellation and injunction based on alleged agreements to sell. HELD- Findings that the agreements were unproved and unreliable, based on evidence, could not be interfered with under Section 100 CPC absent perversity, illegality or a substantial question of law. Re-appreciation of evidence was impermissible; appeal dismissed |
| 95 | SAW / 552 / 2026 (RAMESH KUMAR SONI VS SAMPAT RAJ SONI) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2026 The petitioner sought setting aside of the eviction order, contending that the Maintenance Tribunal lacked power to evict him under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. HELD- the Tribunal has an implicit, discretionary power to order eviction for a senior citizen’s protection. The father’s ownership, harassment and criminal hostility justified eviction; no jurisdictional error was shown. Appeal dismissed. |
| 96 | CRLW / 224 / 2026 (ISLAM KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2026 The petitioners sought restraint against police photographing and circulating their images after arrest, alleging violation of dignity, privacy and fair trial. HELD- Police power to investigate does not include power to declare guilt or impose punishment. Public condemnation through media exposure, staged photographs or social-media circulation amounts to extra-legal punishment, violates presumption of innocence and Article 21; police cannot conduct a parallel social/media trail. |
| 97 | CW / 12887 / 2012 (M/S. ANIL SUGAR CANDY WORKS VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the search and seizure of their business and residential premises u/Sec 75 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, alleging no sufficient basis. HELD- Residential premises may be searched where tangible material creates reasonable belief of tax evasion or concealment of business records. Here, the complaint, inquiry reports, common ownership, similar businesses and prior tax proceedings furnished such basis; search upheld and petitions dismissed. |
| 98 | CMA / 2109 / 2007 (UNION OF INDIA VS V S SAINI) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/04/2026 Whether the Arbitrator's interpretation of the contract and appreciation of documents amounted to misconduct or perversity warranting interference under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and whether the 117-day delay deserved condonation. HELD- The Arbitrator adopted a plausible interpretation, considered the material record, and committed no misconduct or perversity. The delay was inadequately explained. Both appeals dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of. |
| 99 | CMA / 1667 / 2008 (THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS SMT. JAMNA KANWAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/04/2026 Whether a tractor licence validly authorised driving the insured tempo and whether the insurer was liable despite the alleged licence breach. HELD: A tractor is included in LMV under Section 2(21); the 1,180-kg tempo was an LMV, and Section 10 prescribes no tractor licence. No separate transport endorsement was required; no policy breach arose and the insurer remained liable. ₹4,000 income was proved. Appeal dismissed; award upheld. |
| 100 | CW / 1665 / 2016 (SHREE RAJ. SYNTEX VS STATE ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/04/2026 Petitioners sought to challenge levy under the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act, 1962 on open-access electricity, AVVNL’s collection authority, and inclusion of transmission losses as energy consumed. HELD- Open-access electricity consumed in Rajasthan attracts duty/cess; AVVNL may collect it under Rule 3. Transmission losses are not “energy consumed”; metering rules or contract cannot enlarge the charge. Petitions partly allowed; actual consumption taxable; pending applications disposed of. |
| 101 | CW / 6974 / 2025 (LRS OF SUNNY VS THE UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/04/2026 Petitioner sought regularization of his long-serving part-time service. HELD-Long and continuous service performing perennial work cannot be denied regularization merely because the employee was treated as part-time or paid from the contingency fund. A sanctioned post could be inferred from the nature of the work and continuous service. Regularization as MTS (Group-C) from 25.07.2011 with consequential benefits was directed; pending applications, if any, were disposed of. |
| 102 | CRLA / 193 / 1998 (STATE VS SEWA SINGH AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/04/2026 The State sought setting aside of the probation granted despite conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. HELD- Probation was justified for first-time offenders without adverse antecedents, considering their reformation and prolonged prosecution. The Trial Court balanced societal interest with rehabilitation through conditions ensuring accountability. Absent illegality, perversity or gross impropriety, appellate interference was unwarranted; appeal dismissed. |
| 103 | CRLMP / 9802 / 2025 (KUNARAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/04/2026 Petitioner sought exemption from the 20% pre-deposit imposed while suspending sentence u/Sec 430 BNSS in an appeal against Section 138 N.I. Act conviction. HELD- Sections 430 BNSS and 148 N.I. Act operates independently; Section 148 requires a complainant’s application and judicious exercise after hearing the accused, not routine imposition. Deposit may be dispensed with where it causes injustice. Condition set aside; appeal to proceed without pre-deposit. Petition disposed accordingly. |
| 104 | CMA / 397 / 2026 (SMT. ASHA VS SHRI VINOD) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/04/2026 Petitioner sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) HMA on grounds of cruelty and desertion despite alleged inconsistencies in her evidence. HELD-Matrimonial cruelty is assessed cumulatively on preponderance of probabilities; minor variations and delayed FIR do not defeat a consistent case. Six years’ separation and respondent’s conduct established cruelty and desertion. Family Court judgment reversed; divorce granted. Pending applications disposed of. |
| 105 | SAW / 1111 / 2024 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/04/2026 State challenged counting of respondents’ contractual service from 2002/2004 for pension and other benefits. HELD- Though termed contractual, their engagement was essentially on urgent temporary basis and continued uninterruptedly until regular appointment in 2015. Service from 2002/2004 to 2015 is qualifying service under Rules 3(r) and 12 of the Pension Rules, 1996. Probation could not restart in 2015; prior service also qualified for privilege leave. State’s appeal dismissed. |
| 106 | CRLMP / 2009 / 2026 (MOHAMMAD ATIK VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/04/2026 Peti challenged bailable warrants issued after filing of charge-sheet, though they were not arrested during investigation. HELD- Where custody was not required during investigation & there is no likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence or evading process, accused should not be taken into custody merely for consideration of bail. “Custody” u/Sec 170 CrPC means presentation before Court, not compulsory arrest. Warrants can’t be issued casually; petition allowed & warrants quashed. |
| 107 | CW / 7624 / 2019 (UNION OF INDIA VS SUMER LAL CHOUHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/04/2026 Petitioner sought to challenge the Tribunal’s direction granting temporary status and consideration for regularization. HELD- Long, continuous service of over 30 years, where the Department did not dispute engagement or required service under the 1993 Scheme and conceded appointments were not irregular, warranted consideration for regularization. Benefits of employees who left service in 2009 were confined to actual service. Writ dismissed qua R1 & R2 and partly allowed qua R3 & R4. |
| 108 | CW / 995 / 2012 (SMT. SATYA GARG VS KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/04/2026 Petitioner challenged disciplinary penalty for excess grace marks and manipulation of examination records. HELD- Section 16 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was inapplicable to 2005-2006. Award of grace marks beyond Article 106 of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas was proved. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence where adequate opportunity of defence was given. Penalty under Rule 11(vi) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was valid; writ petition dismissed. |
| 109 | ITA / 141 / 2011 (HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. VS A.C.I.T.CIRCLE-2,UDAIPUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/04/2026 Whether the assessee’s claim for Section 244A interest on the refund arising from the set-off of ₹5.53 crores was legally tenable despite the ITAT’s earlier direction under KVSS. HELD- Section 244A mandates interest where refund is due, but the ITAT’s unchallenged direction denying interest to the extent covered by KVSS had attained finality. The CIT (A)’s contrary direction was illegal and without jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. |
| 110 | CRLA / 643 / 1997 (STATE VS HAZARI LAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/04/2026 State sought reversal of acquittal under Sections 8/18 NDPS Act for alleged opium recovery, where the accused was outside the house and exclusive control of the recovery room was unproved. HELD-Mere proximity does not establish possession; conscious and exclusive possession requires corpus, animus and dominion/control, proved beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to prove exclusive control created reasonable doubt. Acquittal affirmed; appeal dismissed, bail bonds discharged and record returned. |
| 111 | CRLAS / 745 / 2022 (KANA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/04/2026 Appellant challenged conviction for demanding and accepting bribe. HELD- under the Prevention of Corruption Act, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant turned hostile; no work was pending; tainted money was recovered from the ground. Electronic evidence was inadmissible without a valid, contemporaneous Section 65B certificate; a six-year-delayed certificate could not cure the defect. Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted. |
| 112 | CRLBC / 70 / 2025 (ARJIN RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/04/2026 Complainant sought cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.2. HELD- Under Section 483(3) BNSS, 2023, bail is a conditional liberty. Repeated threats, coercive demands and intimidation after release constitute supervening circumstances warranting cancellation. Intimidation of the complainant or witnesses imperils a fair trial. Bail cancellation is preventive, not punitive. Bail order set aside; Respondent No.2 directed to surrender forthwith. |
| 113 | CRLAD / 280 / 2019 (MAGHA RAM VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2026 Whether the conviction under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC could be sustained when the prosecution failed to establish cruelty for dowry and the complete chain of circumstantial evidence. HELD- Section 106 cannot be invoked to fill gaps in the prosecution case; the initial burden remains on the prosecution. The FSL report was insufficient. Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. |
| 114 | CRLW / 1646 / 2026 (ASLAM KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings arising from a 2004 FIR under Section 379 IPC. HELD- Though mere delay does not extinguish investigation, continued pendency despite petitioner not being named, acquittal of the charge-sheeted accused, absence of fresh incriminating material and complete investigative stagnation violates Article 21. Indefinite investigative inertia is impermissible and continuation amounts to abuse of criminal process; proceedings qua petitioner quashed. |
| 115 | CMA / 412 / 2025 (JAI NARAYAN VYAS UNIVERSITY VS M/S SAWAI ENGINEERS) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2026 University challenged the arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. HELD- Section 37 jurisdiction is even more narrowly circumscribed,the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view where the Arbitrator’s findings represent a plausible view. An alternative interpretation of Clause 6 is no ground for interference. The findings on limitation represented a possible view; no ground for interference was made out. Appeal dismissed; award upheld. |
| 116 | CW / 4247 / 2026 (FEDERATION OF PRIVATE MEDICAL AND DENTAL COLLEGE OF RAJASTHAN VS CHAIRMAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/04/2026 Whether denial of reservation benefits to reserved-category candidates belonging to other States was arbitrary and violative of the constitutional mandate. HELD- Benefits of reservation granted in one State cannot be extended to reserved category candidates belonging to another State. Instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. |
| 117 | CW / 5368 / 2025 (TAKHAT SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/04/2026 Whether the impugned order was violative of the principles of natural justice and unsustainable for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of 30 days' notice. HELD- A separate and specific 30-days' notice must precede the final termination decision. Mere incorporation or recital of termination in the initial notice is insufficient compliance. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the mining lease is restored. |
| 118 | CW / 4523 / 2026 (SHRI NITIN JAIN VS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/04/2026 Petitioners alleged illegal construction and encroachment in Mount Abu ESZ. HELD- The principal allegations of continuing large-scale encroachment did not survive on record. However, the ESZ Notifications and Zonal Master Plan 2030 are enforceable; no construction or activity contrary to them can be permitted. Strict monitoring and enforcement are mandatory to protect Mount Abu’s fragile ecology. Environmental protection is a constitutional mandate u/Art21, 48A and 51A(g). PIL disposed of. |
| 119 | CRLA / 612 / 1996 (STATE VS SURAJ DASS) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/04/2026 The State sought reversal of the acquittal, contending that the prosecution had proved the recovery and compliance with the NDPS safeguards. HELD- Material contradictions, doubtful chain of custody, inadequate proof of Sections 42/50 compliance and failure to establish conscious possession cumulatively created reasonable doubt. The Trial Court’s view was plausible and legally sustainable; hence no interference was warranted. Appeal dismissed; acquittal affirmed. |
| 120 | CRLA / 484 / 1998 (STATE VS RAM SWAROOP) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2026 The State challenged the respondents’ acquittal under Sections 3(1) and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act. HELD- The prosecution failed to prove the alleged contravention beyond reasonable doubt; evidentiary inconsistencies and procedural deficiencies supported the trial court’s plausible view. As no perversity, illegality or material irregularity justified interference, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal affirmed. |
| 121 | CRLAS / 644 / 2026 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS ASHOK CHANDER BHATIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2026 Whether the acquittal could be reversed when the prosecutrix and witnesses vacillated and the evidence admitted two reasonable views. HELD- The preliminary inquiry report was only corroborative and could not substitute substantive proof; contradictions and partial retraction by the prosecutrix, with discordant inquiry material, created reasonable doubt. As the Trial Court’s view was possible and lawful, and not perverse, benefit of doubt was rightly given. Appeal dismissed; acquittal affirmed. |
| 122 | CRLAS / 142 / 2026 (OM PRAKASH NAYAK VS GOPAL RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/04/2026 The appellant sought restoration of the Section 138 NI Act complaint, challenging its dismissal for one instance of non-appearance. HELD- Since dismissal for default carries consequences akin to acquittal, the Court must apply its mind to deliberate or contumacious default, prior diligence, prejudice and whether another opportunity is warranted. Mechanical dismissal defeats adjudication on merits; the non-speaking, disproportionate order was set aside and the complaint restored. |
| 123 | CW / 9593 / 2022 (SAI TIRUPATI UNIVERSITY VS THE DISCOM THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/04/2026 The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of the seven-year electricity-duty exemption under the Rajasthan Solar Energy Policy, 2019. HELD- Though the State can alter or withdraw its policy in larger public interest or for fiscal requirements, it cannot take away accrued rights arising from a clear representation acted upon to the promisee’s detriment. The amendment dated 10.05.2022 operates prospectively; projects commissioned before it retain the seven-year exemption from their COD. |
| 124 | CRLMP / 522 / 2026 (VIVEK SINGH RAJPUT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/04/2026 Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence warranting investigation and whether absence of a specifically delineated role warrants quashing at the nascent stage. HELD- The FIR is not an encyclopedia; absence of a specifically delineated role is not a ground for quashing where investigation is required to ascertain culpability. The Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry or mini-trial. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. |
| 125 | CW / 5942 / 2026 (SQN. LDR. DEEPAK SINDHU VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/03/2026 The petitioner challenged the premature transfer from Jodhpur to Tezpur. HELD- Administrative power of transfer is not unbridled; deviation from an established minimum-tenure policy requires exceptional circumstances supported by cogent reasons. Mere “administrative exigency” is insufficient. Non-consideration of compelling medical circumstances and the representation vitiated the decision for non-application of mind. Transfer quashed; fresh order permitted in accordance with policy. |
| 126 | CW / 15655 / 2024 (M/S UNITED COAL CARRIER VS RAJASTHAN STATE MINES AND MINERAL LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/03/2026 The petitioner challenged termination of its contract for delayed commencement and deficient performance. HELD- Where a force majeure clause extends to causes beyond the affected party’s reasonable control, persistent third-party obstruction materially preventing performance falls within the clause even if not expressly enumerated. Delay and shortfall caused thereby cannot be attributed to the contractor or justify termination. Petition allowed. |
| 127 | CW / 1358 / 2025 (GANGA KUMARI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/03/2026 The petitioner challenged the State’s notification placing transgender persons in the OBC category, contending it did not provide effective reservation. HELD- Mere inclusion in OBC does not fulfill NALSA’s mandate to extend “all kinds of reservation” where it confers no tangible benefit. The High Court cannot itself create or redesign reservation; the State must formulate an appropriate policy. Pending such decision, 3% additional weightage was directed. |
| 128 | CRLA / 560 / 2008 (STATE VS PINTU @ PRAVEEN SINGH AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/03/2026 The State challenged the acquittal under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC, while the accused challenged his conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC. HELD- A single blow, without premeditation or intention to cause death, but with knowledge that it was likely to cause death, attracts Section 304 Part II IPC. The State’s appeal was dismissed; the accused’s conviction was altered and he was sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. All pending applications stand disposed of. |
| 129 | CRLMB / 2242 / 2026 (WARIS ALIAS LAHAKI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/03/2026 Applicants sought regular bail in connection with offences under the BNS arising from an alleged ATM theft. HELD – Criminal antecedents alone cannot justify refusal of bail. Court held that community service may be imposed as a condition of bail in appropriate non-heinous cases as a reformative measure under the BNSS to facilitate rehabilitation & prevent recidivism. Such conditions must have a nexus with the administration of justice and should not be imposed in gender-sensitive offences. |
| 130 | CRLR / 1521 / 2024 (RAJPAL SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/03/2026 Petitioner challenged proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC concerning disputed property despite pending civil proceedings. HELD- Where civil proceedings concerning title and possession are pending, parallel proceedings u/Sec145 & 146 are neither appropriate nor legally justified. Cogent and reliable material showing imminent danger of breach of peace is required; vague or bald assertions are insufficient. The revision was dismissed and the SDM’s order quashed and set aside. |
| 131 | CRLW / 1081 / 2026 (SHWETAMBARI VIKRAM BHATT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2026 Petitioners challenged the freezing of their entire bank accounts pursuant to police directions. HELD- Freezing is an extraordinary measure to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. It must have a “live, proximate and direct nexus” with the alleged criminal activity. Freezing beyond the disputed amount, without cogent and justifiable reasons, is disproportionate. Accounts were defreezed subject to ₹30 crores remaining frozen; pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. |
| 132 | CRLMA / 181 / 2026 (SANTOSH DANGI VS FILM M/S ROYAL SANITARY) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2026 Petitioner sought waiver of costs imposed for compounding a Section 138 prosecution after settlement, citing financial incapacity and continued incarceration. HELD- Costs are regulatory in nature and their application admits of flexibility. Where the complainant has no subsisting grievance, incarceration cannot be sustained without wilful default. Costs cannot result in deprivation of personal liberty on account of financial incapacity. Costs were waived and the arrest warrant set aside. |
| 133 | CRLMA / 147 / 2024 (SUPRIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/03/2026 Petitioner sought recall of the order whereby the entire FIR was quashed despite compromise being confined to two accused. HELD- Recall does not involve re-evaluation of merits, but is a limited corrective authority inherent in every Court of record to rectify an accidental or clerical mistake and restore the order to its true judicial intent. The FIR was quashed only qua the compromised parties; proceedings against the remaining accused continue unaffected. Application stands allowed. |
| 134 | CRLCP / 3 / 2019 (IN RE VS DILIP KUMAR SAINI) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/03/2026 Whether grievances against the personal conduct of a judicial officer, expressed during an official inquiry, constitute criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.HELD- Such grievances do not constitute criminal contempt unless they have a real and substantial tendency to scandalise the Court, interfere with judicial proceedings or obstruct administration of justice. Criminal contempt reference: Dismissed. Rule: Discharged. |
| 135 | SAW / 327 / 2026 (MAHIPAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/03/2026 Appellant challenged the cancellation of a Gram Panchayat patta granted in his favour. HELD- A patta issued in violation of the mandatory statutory procedure and in favour of a close relative of the Sarpanch, resulting in conflict of interest, nepotism and favouritism, is legally unsustainable. Possession, construction or investment cannot validate an allotment founded on illegality. The Collector rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 97. Appeal dismissed. |
| 136 | CRLW / 410 / 2026 (NARAYAN ALIAS RAM NARAYAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/03/2026 Petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for second parole on the ground that the victim and the convict resided in the same village. HELD-Parole, being an integral facet of the reformative theory of punishment, cannot be denied on speculative apprehensions absent tangible material showing a real and imminent threat. The rights of the victim and the convict's rehabilitation must be balanced by imposing appropriate conditions rather than refusing parole. Petition allowed. |
| 137 | CW / 12461 / 2024 (KHUSHBU CHOUDHARY VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/03/2026 Petitioner challenged the final answer key of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Preliminary Examination. HELD-In academic evaluation, the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the final answer key approved by the Expert Committee. A plausible alternative view is no ground for interference. Judicial interference is warranted only if the answer key is manifestly arbitrary or perverse, or a clear and indisputable error is established. The writ petition was dismissed. |
| 138 | CMA / 1393 / 2008 (OM PRAKASH AND ORS. VS BALWANT AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/02/2026 Appellants challenged the dismissal of their suit under Order XI Rule 21 CPC for alleged non-compliance with an order directing production of documents. HELD – Proceedings under Order XI Rule 21(1) CPC cannot be initiated for non-compliance of an order passed under Order XI Rule 14 CPC. An order under Rule 21 requires willful default, obstinacy or contumacy in disregarding the Court's order. As these were absent, the impugned order was set aside and the suit was restored. |
| 139 | CW / 3778 / 2026 (MOHD. SABEER KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/02/2026 Petitioner challenged a show cause notice proposing penalty for alleged illegal mining based on a drone survey without supply of the relied-upon survey report. HELD–Non-disclosure of the material relied upon fundamentally denies a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing under the audi alteram partem rule. Furnishing selective particulars is no substitute for disclosure of the entire material. Such notice is amenable to writ jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. |
| 140 | CW / 1439 / 2026 (M/S UJJAIN DREAMS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/02/2026 Petitioner challenged the tender process for operation of boating services at Nakki Lake. HELD-Judicial review in tender matters is confined to the decision-making process. Where only one bidder remains responsive, strict compliance with Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 is mandatory. Failure to record reasons and prepare the prescribed justification note vitiates the process. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned NIT was quashed. |
| 141 | CW / 18888 / 2022 (HARJI RAM VS LICHHMAN RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/02/2026 Petitioners challenged rejection of their impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC in proceedings under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. HELD–The competent authority must undertake a comprehensive and comparative evaluation of all feasible alternative routes. "Necessity" means absolute necessity and not mere convenience or preference. The enquiry is not confined to the route proposed by the applicant. The impugned orders were quashed and set aside. |
| 142 | CW / 16944 / 2021 (NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. VS MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/02/2026 Petitioners challenged the award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council alleging non-following of the procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. HELD-Even if the statutory procedure was not followed, such ground would fall within the ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised where a specific alternative remedy under a specific statute is provided. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. |
| 143 | CRLMP / 9056 / 2025 (YASHWANT SOLANKI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/02/2026 Petitioner challenged the rejection of his application under Section 94 BNSS seeking summoning of records of departmental proceedings arising from the same incident. HELD-An accused may invoke Section 94 BNSS during trial to summon documents necessary or desirable for effective cross-examination and a fair defence. This right, an integral facet of a fair trial under Article 21, cannot be denied merely because the documents form part of pending departmental proceedings. Petition allowed. |
| 144 | CRLW / 603 / 2026 (JITENDRA SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/02/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under the Arms Act, alleging implication solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement. HELD- A co-accused's disclosure may warrant a deeper investigation, and an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence cannot ordinarily be quashed at that stage. Where the accused is already in judicial custody, the investigating agency must establish, through objective material, the means of his alleged involvement. The writ petition was partly allowed. |
| 145 | CW / 610 / 2026 (ARYAMAN NURSING COLLEGE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/02/2026 Petitioners sought inclusion in the concluded seat matrix and reopening of counseling after obtaining NOCs and recognition. HELD- The right to establish an institution cannot be equated with a right to insist upon student allotment for a concluded academic session. Midstream inclusion would disrupt academic schedules. All writ petitions: Dismissed. Pending applications, if any: Disposed of. Prospectively, NOC applications shall be decided 45 days before the first counseling round. |
| 146 | CW / 23307 / 2025 (FORTUNE FOUNDATION VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/02/2026 Petitioner sought inclusion in the concluded seat matrix and reopening of counseling after obtaining NOC and recognition. HELD-The right to establish an institution cannot be equated with a right to insist upon student allotment for a concluded academic session. Midstream inclusion would disrupt academic schedules. Writ Petition: Dismissed. Pending applications, if any: Disposed of. Prospectively, NOC applications shall be decided at least 45 days before the first counseling round |
| 147 | CRLMP / 2676 / 2024 (JAI KISHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/02/2026 Petitioner challenged concurrent orders refusing interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act. HELD – The statutory bar against a second revision under Section 397(3) CrPC cannot be circumvented by changing the nomenclature of the proceeding. Courts must look to the substance of the relief claimed. Inherent jurisdiction cannot substitute an exhausted revisional remedy except in cases of patent illegality or manifest miscarriage of justice. The petition was dismissed. |
| 148 | CRLR / 189 / 2026 (AMIN KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/02/2026 Petitioners challenged the framing of charges in cross-cases arising from the same occurrence and refusal to frame Section 308 IPC in the counter-case. HELD- Charges in cross-cases need not be symmetrical; each case must stand on its own evidentiary footing, and criminal liability is individualised and fact-specific. The Magistrate-triable case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial with the cross-case. Present revision was disposed of. |
| 149 | CRLMP / 7453 / 2025 (MAHAVEER VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of orders directing police & FSL to investigate the matter in a particular manner. HELD- though Court may direct further investigation u/Sec.173(8) CrPC, it cannot control manner of investigation or prescribe mode of collecting evidence, such power lies in exclusive domain of Investigating Agency, Court may monitor but not supervise. Such directions are unwarranted hence set aside to that extent. Petition partly allowed and pending applications disposed of. |
| 150 | CRLMP / 7662 / 2025 (DEEPAK ARORA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings for offences under BNS and SC/ST Act arising out of alleged incident in Director’s office. HELD- even if FIR is taken at face value, incident within “four corners of the office” is not in “public views” mere presence of few employees is not public. Sec 3 (1) (r) & (s) not made out. Use of word “neech” is not caste-based and “mens rea” to humiliate is missing; continuation amounts to abuse of process of Court. FIR quashed. |
| 151 | CRLR / 103 / 2026 (SUMITRA VS ASHISH) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2026 Accused sought quashing of appellate judgment setting aside conviction & remanding matter for fresh trial. HELD- appeal u/ proviso of Sec 372 CrPC not maintainable as it lies only against acquittal, lesser conviction or inadequate compensation grant of probation is part of sentencing. Appellate court committed fundamental jurisdictional error & made unwarranted assumption. Remand giving prosecution “2nd opportunity” is impermissible. Revision allowed, trial court’s judgment restored. |
| 152 | CRLR / 904 / 2025 (RAMURAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/02/2026 Petitioner sought restoration of the S.D.M.’s order directing attachment of the disputed land and appointment of a receiver, which had been set aside in revision. HELD- proceedings u/Sec.145 & 146 CrPC require material showing real and immediate threat of breach of peace, mere apprehension is insufficient. SDM acted without such material, Hon’ble court found that the entire proceedings are vitiated Impugned orders quashed and set aside, revision allowed and pending applications disposed of. |
| 153 | CW / 685 / 2005 (SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/02/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of punishment, appellate and revisional orders arising from departmental proceedings. HELD- Rule 28(b) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 bars appeal against punishment of censure; right of appeal is purely statutory and must be expressly provided. Entertaining such appeal was without jurisdiction; appellate and revisional proceedings stand vitiated, impugned orders quashed, original censure order survives, petition allowed and pending applications disposed of. |
| 154 | CRLA / 508 / 1993 (LAL SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/01/2026 Appellant challenged his conviction under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. HELD-Section 3(1) (x) is attracted only where the insult or intimidation is intentionally directed against the victim on the ground of his caste and with the object of humiliating him in public view. Mere abusive language or a personal or monetary dispute does not ipso facto attract the rigours of the SC/ST Act. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed. |
| 155 | CRLW / 2358 / 2025 (PRADEEP KUMAR SARWOGI VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/01/2026 Petitioner sought direction for renewal of passport despite pendency of criminal proceedings. HELD- Sec.6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act does not impose an absolute embargo on renewal merely due to pendency. Restriction is regulatory and purpose-oriented. Renewal is distinct from travel abroad. Insistence on prior NOC is procedural formalism unsupported by the statutory scheme, denial isn’t proportionate. Passport directed to be renewed, subject to court’s permission for travel. |
| 156 | CRLMB / 8807 / 2025 (PAPPULAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/01/2026 Petitioner sought bail u/Sec 483 BNSS in connection with offences under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, alleging non-compliance with the NDPS Rules, 2022. HELD – The mandatory safeguards governing seizure and sampling form part of the “procedure established by law” under Article 21. While applying Section 37, the Court must prima facie examine compliance with those safeguards, as detention founded on their apparent breach cannot be constitutionally sustained. Bail granted. |
| 157 | CW / 15695 / 2025 (ARVIND KUMAR VS LRS. OF LATE SHRI SHIVNATH) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/01/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 29.07.2025 rejecting application u/O.1 R.10 CPC seeking impleadment of a party as defendant in suit proceedings. HELD- a person against whom no relief is claimed and no averment exists in plaint is a “stranger” and neither a “necessary nor proper party”; dominus litis is not absolute, rejection of impleadment is justified, no jurisdictional error found. Writ petition dismissed. |
| 158 | CW / 20117 / 2025 (RAJEEV BHANDARI VS JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/01/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the notice issued u/Sec 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act & restraint auction of his flat. HELD- Respondent is a private financial institution, not amenable to writ jurisdiction; the petitioner is an aggrieved person having an efficacious statutory remedy u/Sec 17 SARFAESI. In view of the alternative remedy, Art 226 cannot be invoked. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the competent forum. |
| 159 | CMA / 88 / 2024 (AMARBHAW POWER PRIVATE LIMITED VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/01/2026 The appellant sought recovery of the amount levied as pre-payment charges and declaration that the relevant clause in the loan agreement was illegal. HELD- that pre-payment charges were levied strictly in terms of the contractual stipulation. The Code of Bank’s Commitment for MSMEs is voluntary and cannot override express contractual terms, having accepted the agreement, the borrower is bound by it and estopped from disputing the charges, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. |
| 160 | CW / 24708 / 2025 (RAJESH KUMAR VS SHRI ANAND KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/01/2026 Peti. sought quashing of orders rejecting his applications u/Sec 138 & 145 of the IEA & closing his cross-examination. HELD- the “pigeon hole theory” is not contemplated under the IEA & can be invoked only when a witness deposes in the nature of a handwriting expert, confronting a witness by concealing the document contents is deceptive and impermissible. No perversity or jurisdictional error was found. Writ petition was dismissed and stay, pending applications stood disposed of. |
| 161 | CRLR / 1100 / 2025 (RADHAKISHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/01/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the order framing charge under Section 307 IPC. HELD- that to attract Section 307 IPC there must be prima facie intention or knowledge to cause death. Blunt injury without use of deadly weapon or conduct indicating homicidal intent is insufficient. The charge under Section 307 IPC was quashed, charges under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 354 IPC were maintained, the case was transferred to the Magistrate, and pending applications were disposed of. |
| 162 | CW / 94 / 2026 (PRATIBHA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/01/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the order rejecting its application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC and permission to place rejoinder on record. HELD- Order VIII Rule 9 does not prescribe any limitation and rejoinder can be permitted at any stage; rejection merely on the ground of delay is legally unsustainable. As new explanations were introduced in the written statement, the impugned order was quashed, rejoinder was allowed, and the suit was directed to proceed expeditiously. |
| 163 | CRLA / 547 / 1996 (BABU LAL AND ANS VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2026 The appellants sought setting aside of the judgment and acquittal from offences under Sections 324, 149, 147 and 452 IPC. HELD- the conviction was justified on the basis of prosecution and medical evidence. however, the trial court erred in denying probation without recording special reasons under Section 361 CrPC. Considering the age of the case, the substantive sentences were reduced to the period already undergone, default fine sentences were maintained, and the appeals were disposed of. |
| 164 | CRLW / 1292 / 2025 (RAJU RAM CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2026 The petitioner sought expunction of adverse and stigmatic remarks recorded against him in the orders. HELD- that remarks affecting reputation or service cannot be made without granting opportunity of hearing, such observations were unnecessary, exceeded the limited jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the adverse remarks were expunged, while the operative directions and criminal proceedings were left unaffected, and the writ petition was allowed. |
| 165 | CW / 303 / 2016 (MANOHAR SINGH VS STATE and ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/01/2026 The petitioners challenged the cancellation of a concluded auction and sought restoration of allotment. HELD- that once an auction is completed and bidders are declared successful, cancellation cannot be mechanical. Such action must disclose valid reasons and comply with principles of natural justice. Discretion under auction conditions is not absolute and must conform to Articles 14 and 300-A. As cancellation was without reasons or hearing, orders were quashed, allotments restored. |
| 166 | CRLA / 12 / 1995 (RUPA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/01/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the judgment convicting him under Section 306 IPC and prayed for acquittal. HELD- that to prove abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intentional aid under Section 107 IPC. Mere allegations, suspicion, or family discord cannot constitute abetment. As the prosecution failed to prove these essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted. |
| 167 | CRLAD / 41 / 2023 (MANOJ VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/01/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the judgment dated 14.11.2022 and acquittal from offences under Sections 376(2), 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. HELD- that the testimony of the minor victim was natural, cogent and trustworthy, duly corroborated by medical evidence; statutory presumptions under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act and Section 29 of the POCSO Act remained unrebutted; incestuous sexual assault by a father warranted punishment. Criminal appeal was dismissed. |
| 168 | SAW / 727 / 2025 (ABHISHEK JAIN VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/01/2026 The appellant sought quashing of the judgment dated 17.04.2025 and a direction for appointment to the post of Pharmacist. HELD- that delays in issuance of registration for an already acquired qualification cannot prejudice a candidate when such delay is attributable to the authority, legitimate expectation stands violated. The impugned judgment was quashed, appointment was directed with notional benefits, the special appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of. |
| 169 | SAW / 1607 / 2025 (SANJEEV KUMAR MALIK VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/01/2026 The appellant sought quashing of the suspension order passed on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings despite completion of inquiry. HELD- that suspension invoked after conclusion of inquiry is ex facie untenable. Mere absence of final order does not amount to pendency so as to justify suspension, the action reflected arbitrariness and non-application of mind. Accordingly, operation and effect of the suspension order were stayed till final adjudication of the writ petition. |
| 170 | CMA / 1319 / 2025 (AYASHA CHOUHAN VS WASEEM KHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/01/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the Family Court judgment and a decree declaring dissolution of marriage. HELD- under Sunni Muslim law, Talaq-ul-Hasan and Mubarat are valid modes of divorce. Where talaq is admitted, presence of witnesses is not mandatory. The Family Court has jurisdiction u/sec 7 of the Family Courts Act to recognize such dissolution. The impugned judgment was set aside, decree of divorce was granted, guidelines were issued, and the appeal was disposed of. |
| 171 | CW / 4558 / 2025 (M/S M R TRADERS VS THE UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/01/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of orders cancelling GST registration and condonation of delay in filing appeal. HELD- that though the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond Section 107 of the CGST Act, the High Court can exercise powers under Article 226. As sufficient cause was shown, denial of remedy would be unjust, therefore the appellate order was set aside, delay was condoned and the appeal was remanded for decision on merits. |
| 172 | SAW / 1560 / 2025 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS RAJASTHAN VEHICLE FITNESS CENTER NOKHA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/01/2026 The appellants challenged the Single Judge’s order & sought enforcement of Rule 62(1)(b) of the CMV Rules, 1989 for issuing fitness certificates only through Automated Testing Stations. HELD- Appeal disposed of while clarifying the order i.e. - the ATS system is mandatory, existing LOA holders under FIJA-2018 may operate only till an ATS becomes functional in the district, no further extensions can be granted, ATS must be fully implemented, security deposit condition stands. |
| 173 | CRLW / 3130 / 2025 (KHARTARAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/01/2026 The petitioner sought waiver of the condition of furnishing two sureties for release on fourth parole and prayed for release on personal bond. HELD- that insistence on surety from an indigent prisoner is arbitrary and renders parole illusory. Discretion under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 must advance reformative and humanitarian objects under Articles 14 and 21, the surety condition was waived. With these observations and directions, writ petition is allowed. |
| 174 | CW / 3118 / 2025 (ANKIT KUMAR MEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/01/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of notifications including Scheduled Area villages within municipal limits. HELD- paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule is exclusionary and not a condition precedent; unless the Governor issues a notification excluding or modifying its application, State law continues to operate in Scheduled Areas. The Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 validly applied, inclusion within municipal limits was constitutionally permissible, and the writ petitions were dismissed. |
| 175 | CW / 3331 / 2017 (DUDHU GRAM SEVA SAH. SMITI., VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/12/2025 The petitioners sought quashing of RBI circulars dated 14.11.2016 restraining District Central Co-operative Banks and PACS from dealing with specified bank notes. HELD - notification under Section 26(2). The notification did not confer an absolute right. Differential treatment was based on intelligible differentia. No violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 300-A was found. Petitions dismissed. |
| 176 | CW / 17703 / 2025 (SURESH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/12/2025 The petitioners sought quashing of land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for a Forward Composite Aviation Base. HELD- the statutory requirements including Social Impact Assessment and public hearing were complied with. No violation of Sections 5, 7, 11, 12, 15 or 19 was found. As the acquisition was for national importance, interference was declined. The writ petition was dismissed. |
| 177 | CW / 11031 / 2018 (S. N. DERASHRI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/12/2025 The petitioner sought grant of pension from the date of compulsory retirement with interest, counting prior advocacy practice towards qualifying service and quashing of orders rejecting the claim. HELD-that pension eligibility requires completion of minimum qualifying service under Rule 54(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996; executive orders do not create entitlement, the claim is barred by res judicata, and the writ petition was dismissed accordingly. |
| 178 | CRLA / 274 / 1993 (STATE VS CHANDRA AVTAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/12/2025 The State and the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondents for offences of cheating and forgery. HELD- that enhancement can be ordered only when the sentence is manifestly inadequate, perverse or illegal. Finding that the Trial Court exercised discretion within statutory limits and no perversity or illegality was shown, interference was declined. The conviction and sentence were affirmed, and the criminal appeal and revision petition were dismissed. |
| 179 | CRLA / 680 / 1998 (HIMMAT SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2025 The appellant sought setting aside of conviction under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. HELD- that gas regulators are not declared essential commodities and no control order was produced. The seized articles were not proved to be regulators nor examined, and recovery suffered from defects without independent support. On parity with the acquitted co-accused, the prosecution failed. The conviction was set aside, the appellant acquitted, bail bonds discharged, fine refunded. |
| 180 | CRLA / 494 / 1994 (BRIJ MOHAN @ RAJA VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2025 The appellant sought reversal of the conviction under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 323 IPC. HELD- that the incident occurred inside a closed showroom and not in public view, an essential ingredient of Section 3(1)(x). The dispute was commercial, the demand draft was not proved, and no medical evidence supported the assault. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, the appellant acquitted, and appeal allowed. |
| 181 | CW / 981 / 2019 (SHANKAR RAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/12/2025 The petitioner challenged disciplinary proceedings culminating in dismissal. HELD- that after a regular departmental enquiry, findings must rest on evidence adduced therein and not on a preliminary enquiry. Ignoring hostile witnesses and the criminal Final Report showed non-application of mind. The Suo motu review was arbitrary. The dismissal and appellate orders were quashed, reinstatement with continuity of service directed, the matter remanded, and the petition disposed. |
| 182 | CW / 12663 / 2016 (SMT ANAND KANWAR VS STATE AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/12/2025 The petitioner sought release of family pension on the basis of nomination and PPO, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. HELD- that nomination does not confer succession or marital rights and that entitlement to family pension depends upon establishing a valid marriage. Disputed questions regarding marital status and succession cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The parties were relegated to civil court for declaration of rights. Petition dismissed. |
| 183 | CW / 2105 / 2018 (KIRTI CHOWDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/12/2025 The petitioner sought appointment under the OBC (Women) category by migration of a reserved candidate to the General (Women) category. HELD- that merit migration is mandatory , a reserved candidate securing higher marks than the General cut-off without availing substantive relaxation cannot be retained in the reserved category. Such non-migration vitiates the selection. The OBC (Women) vacancy was held available and the petitioner was entitled to appointment. The petition was allowed. |
| 184 | CW / 17588 / 2025 (KRISHAN GOPAL AJMERA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/12/2025 The petitioner sought quashing of the seizure notice and removal of seizure over the shop, alleging illegality and absence of notice. HELD-that powers under Section 194 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 extend even to completed unauthorized constructions. Notice to the owner alone was sufficient and no separate notice to the tenant was required. As an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal was available, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to avail such remedy. |
| 185 | CRLMB / 7940 / 2025 (ADNAN HAIDAR BHAI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/11/2025 Applicants seek bail in a digital-arrest fraud case. HELD-prima facie evidence showed accused’s involvement in an organized cyber-extortion network and custodial safeguards were needed, bail was rejected. Court found that IOs are not expert in technology. Various directions issued for handling these types of crimes to ACS Homes, DGP, D.G, SCRB & Cyber, Banks & Financial Institution & other Companies & Department etc.. |
| 186 | CW / 8162 / 2020 (HARJEET SINGH VS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/11/2025 The petitioner sought compassionate appointment, asserting that rejection on the ground of non-indigence ignored liabilities, medical expenses & absence of livelihood. HELD-that a narrow interpretation of “indigent” renders compassionate appointment an illusory promise and that terminal benefits are not perennial income. Holding the rejection arbitrary and unsustainable, the impugned orders were set aside, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, and the writ petition was allowed. |
| 187 | CW / 4005 / 2006 (PRADHUMAN SINGH VS STATE AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/11/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the penalty of withholding two increments, alleging illegal inquiry and violation of natural justice. HELD-the inquiry was lawful, evidence showed negligence, punishment was proportionate, and writ review cannot reassess findings absent perversity or procedural illegality; no interference was warranted and the petition was dismissed. The Court noted that criminal and departmental standards differ and Article 226 permits limited supervisory review. |
| 188 | CW / 10154 / 2019 (NAKUL PATIDAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/11/2025 The petitioners sought consideration for transfer to TSP areas under the applicable circular. Held- recruitment under TSP reservation gave rise to a legitimate expectation of posting in tribal/mineral area. State cannot extend an attractive promise at recruitment & later departs from it without any rational justification. To balance equities & ensure the petitioners are not left remediless. Writ Peti. Disposed of with directions to the respondents for shifting/ adjustment in TSP area. |
| 189 | CRLA / 478 / 2013 (HANUMAN AND ORS. VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/11/2025 Appellants seek setting aside of their conviction u/Sec 306 IPC, asserting absence of instigation or requisite mens rea. HELD-that for abetment of suicide, prosecution must establish a proximate act of instigation or intentional aid as contemplated u/Sec 107 IPC. Mere demand of money or financial dispute, without conduct compelling the deceased to perceive suicide is insufficient. As essential ingredients were not proved, the conviction & sentence were set aside, appellants were acquitted. |
| 190 | CW / 13775 / 2024 (NOPARAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/11/2025 Peti. seeks quashing of the order disqualifying him from the post of Chairman, contending that alleged ineligibility u/ Sec 28(10) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 could not be examined u/Sec 28(13). HELD—that the alleged disqualification was a pre-election issue and not a case of a member having become disqualified after election. The Registrar lacked jurisdiction under Section 28(13), such disputes lie under Section 58. The impugned order was therefore set aside. |
| 191 | CMA / 1193 / 2012 (SMT.NIJRO AND ORS. VS IDRISH AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/11/2025 Appellants seek enhancement of the compensation award passed by the Ld. MACT, Jodhpur. HELD: The deceased was not an unskilled labourer; he was engaged in a specialised trade attracting higher remuneration due to the skill, precision, and physical labour it demands and his average monthly income would reasonably be Rs.9,000/- per month and sometimes even more. The rate of interest @ 8.5% per annum allowed by the learned Tribunal seems just and fair. Appeal allowed & enhanced compensation. |
| 192 | CMA / 14 / 2020 (DANU RAM VS PANCHA RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/10/2025 Appellants seek enhancement of compensation award rendered by the Ld. Judge, MACT, Jodhpur Metropolitan. HELD: The finding of Tribunal in holding 50% Contributory Negligence cannot be sustained, only 1/4th deduction is fair, correct multiplier is not 11 not 9. Parents and children of the deceased should be awarded Rs. 40,000 each for loss of consortium. Compensation enhanced at 40,62,042. |
| 193 | CW / 645 / 2025 (M/S. TATA BRICKS COMPANY (OLD NAME VIP INT UDYOG) VS RAJASTHAN STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/10/2025 Petitioner challenged imposition of Environmental Compensation by RSPCB for alleged operation w/o valid Consent to Operate, pursuant to NGT directions. HELD: In absence of statutory rules, RSPCB lacked jurisdiction to levy Environmental Compensation. CPCB guidelines have no legislative backing. Following the Apex Court in D.P.C.C. vs. Lodhi Properties, such compensation can be imposed only after subordinate legislation is framed. Writ allowed; impugned orders quashed. |
| 194 | CW / 1149 / 2018 (BHAGWAN SINGH VS SUPTD.ENG.PAWAS,AVVNL,BANSWARA AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/10/2025 Petitioner, aged father of a deceased employee, sought directions against his daughter-in-law appointed on compassionate grounds, alleging failure to maintain him despite a solemn affidavit. HELD: Compassionate appointment is a welfare measure carrying fiduciary obligation towards all dependents. Respondent breached her undertaking, defeating the scheme’s object. Petition allowed; respondents directed to deduct ₹20,000 per month from her salary and credit it to Pet. towards maintenance. |
| 195 | SAW / 786 / 2024 (CHATRA GAMETI VS AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/10/2025 Appllt assailing the order passed by ld. Single Judge in Chatra Gameti Vs. AVVNL & ors. HELD: The ld. Single Judge dismissed the petition primarily because the appellant deposited the amount without protest. Recoveries from class 3/4 employees & retired employees are impermissible when the excess payment is not a result of employee’s misconduct but stems from the employee’s own fixation errors. Procedural delay does not confer legitimacy on otherwise unsustainable action. Appeal allowed |
| 196 | CMA / 3000 / 2024 (HINGLAJ DAN VS SMT. KHET KANWAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/10/2025 Appellant assailing the judgment passed by DJ, Jodhpur Metro rejecting the application u/s 270, 276 & 278 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate qua Will. HELD: S. 51 nor Art. 6 of Schedule would not be applied as the application for probate filed stood rejected. The application in question was not only regd. in terms of S. 295 even the proceedings were conducted as a regular civil suit. Appellant is directed to pay court fees before the trial court and court fees on the appeal. |
| 197 | CRLA / 366 / 1993 (FULA RAM AND ORS. VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/10/2025 Appellants challenged their conviction u/s 148, 304 (I) r/w 149 and 323/149 IPC for the death of Kashiram. HELD: Medical & ocular evidence showed fatal injuries were caused only by two deceased accused. No overt act, common object or participation was proved against surviving appellants. Mere presence at the spot is insufficient to attract Sec. 149. Trial Court erred in applying constructive liability. The appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted. |
| 198 | CRLMB / 11482 / 2025 (SANDEEP SINGH ALIAS SONU VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/10/2025 Applicant seeks waiver of the Registry’s objection requiring impleadment of the victim in the POCSO bail application, asserting that no provision mandates adding the victim or guardian as a party. HELD- the Court held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 does not require impleadment, but Sections 39–40 and Rule 4 mandate informing them of proceedings and securing their right to be heard; the objection is waived and the application allowed. |
| 199 | CW / 10763 / 2025 (GLOBAL PHARMACY COLLEGE VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/10/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of ban on NOCs and issuance of NOC for B.Pharmacy. HELD- that the State lacks legislative competence under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 to impose a blanket prohibition through executive instructions, that such action infringes Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), disregards the regulatory primacy of the PCI, and is discriminatory in confining the ban to private colleges as it fails the test of reasonableness. The order was set aside and the writ petition allowed. |
| 200 | CW / 3898 / 2020 (PARAS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/10/2025 Petitioner seeks recognition of his earlier joining and corresponding increment and pay fixation, asserting the delay was caused solely by the employer. HELD-that an employee cannot suffer for an administrative lapse, that the principle against a party benefiting from its own wrong applies, and that unequal treatment with similarly placed candidates violates Articles 14 and 16. Petitioner was therefore entitled to full benefits and the writ was allowed. |
| 201 | CRLA / 729 / 2000 (BHIMA VS STATE OF RAJ.) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2025 Appellants seek reversal of conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, asserting that the prosecution proved no incriminating circumstance. HELD- the Court held that motive was unproved, last-seen evidence absent, the extra-judicial confession improbable, recoveries lacking exclusivity under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and medical evidence inconclusive, rendering the circumstantial chain legally infirm; the conviction was set aside and the appeal stands allowed. |
| 202 | CRLA / 418 / 2000 (VACHNA VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2025 Appellant assailing the judgment passed by ld ASJ, Bhinmal convicting the appellant for the offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. HELD: The element of mens rea requisite for murder is conspicuously absent. At the most, the act can be characterized as a rash and reckless assault committed in the heat of a drunken brawl. The conviction of the appellant u/s 302 IPC is set aside. Instead, he is convicted under Sections 323 & 341 IPC. Appeal partly allowed. |
| 203 | CRLA / 10 / 2002 (SMT. SAMPAT BAI VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2025 Appellants seek reversal of conviction u/Sec 302/34 IPC on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove poisoning or establish a complete circumstantial chain. HELD- that none of the essential elements of a poisoning case—motive, proof of death by poison, possession of poison, or opportunity to administer it—were established; the evidentiary chain was incomplete, the medical and investigative findings were inconclusive, and the conviction could not be upheld; the appeals were allowed. |
| 204 | CSA / 20 / 2024 (KAILASH CHANDRA VS MUKESH KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/10/2025 Appellant assailing the judgment passed by the ld. ADJ No. 3, Bhilwara dismissing first appeal and the judgment rendered affirmed. HELD: Fixation of standard rent at ₹7,000/- per month, effective from the year 2002, is justified, reasonable, and legally sound. The conclusions reached are amply supported by evidence and in consonance with the statutory framework. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for adjudication, and the findings call for no interference. Appeal dismissed. |
| 205 | CW / 9614 / 2025 (SMT. NIRMALA MEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/09/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the prosecution sanction, claiming it was delayed, based on no new material, and contrary to an earlier proposal to deny sanction. HELD—Court found no formal refusal of sanction ever existed, the disciplinary inquiry had not concluded, and the authority applied its mind to the material on record. With no illegality or arbitrariness shown, the sanction was upheld and the writ petition dismissed. |
| 206 | CW / 16531 / 2025 (GURMEL SINGH VS BHOLA SINGH ALIAS SUKHDEV SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/09/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the order de-exhibiting Ex.1, claiming it was only an agreement to sell and therefore admissible without registration. HELD—Court found Ex.1 to be a mortgage by conditional sale under Sec.58(c) TPA, which requires compulsory registration; an unregistered mortgage deed cannot be read in evidence except for collateral purposes. Since admissibility can be questioned at any stage, the trial court’s order was proper and the writ petition was dismissed. |
| 207 | SAW / 912 / 2025 (RAVINDRA GURJAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/09/2025 App. challenged the Order dismissing the petition challenging the repatriation order passed by UDA after his transfer from Municipal Council u/s 336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. HELD: Transfer u/s 336(2) is not deputation as it doesn’t require consent of lending employer, borrowing employer & the employee. Power to transfer/repatriate vests exclusively with State Government. UDA lacked authority to repatriate. Orders of Single Judge & UDA quashed; appeal allowed. |
| 208 | CRLA / 241 / 1993 (UGMA VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/09/2025 Appellant seeks complete reversal of his conviction under Sec 307 IPC, asserting false implication, absence of intent, and fatal investigative lapses. HELD—Court found no proof of intention to kill, no firearm recovery, no ballistic link, and contradictions in FIR and testimony. With co-accused acquitted on identical evidence and no basis to single out appellant, conviction was set aside and acquittal given to the appellant. |
| 209 | CMA / 3011 / 2018 (IMRATI DEVI VS NATTHA RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/09/2025 Appellants seek enhancement of the compensation amount passed by MACT I, Jodhpur. HELD: The financial outgo evidenced by the bank transactions constitutes strong circumstantial proof of the deceased’s earning capacity. And, deceased’s monthly earnings were higher than the EMIs, and this ought to have been taken into consideration while assessing the quantum of compensation. Agriculturist cannot be treated at par with an unskilled labour. Appeal partly allowed with enhanced punishment |
| 210 | ARBAP / 12 / 2023 (SHALU JAIN VS MS SHIVCHARANDAS AND SONS) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/09/2025 Applicant sought appointment of an arbitrator u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking the arbitration clause in a partnership deed after death of her father, a partner. HELD: Arbitration agreement survives death of a party & is enforceable by legal representatives u/s 40. Disputes regarding induction of legal heir & rendition of accounts are arbitrable. Objections regarding dissolution of partnership rejected. Sole arbitrator appointed. Application allowed. |
| 211 | CRLA / 134 / 2002 (STATE VS GIRDHARI LAL AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/09/2025 State appealed against acquittal u/s 302 & 307 IPC in a case based on multiple dying declarations. HELD: Initial statement disclosed inability to identify assailant; subsequent statements were inconsistent & delayed, raising doubt of tutoring. Chain of circumstances was incomplete with contradictions, unreliable witnesses, lack of medical linkage & lapses. No reliable causal nexus proved. Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld. |
| 212 | CRLW / 2351 / 2025 (RAJMAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2025 Pet. sought premature release after undergoing more than 14 yrs. of imprisonment for an offence u/s 302 IPC. HELD: Under Rules 8, 11 & 12 of the Rajasthan Prison (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006, Pet. was eligible for consideration, having earned requisite jail & State remission with good conduct. Rejection by Advisory Committee was not based on plausible reason but on presumptive apprehensions. No adverse jail report existed. Rejection was unsustainable. Petition allowed. |
| 213 | CW / 11716 / 2025 (MR. HEMANT PALIWAL VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2025 Pet. challenged show cause notices & orders treating him as Principal Officer & initiating prosecution for delayed deposit of TDS during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP). HELD After CIRP commencement, management vested in Interim Resolution Professional & Pet., being an employee, couldn’t be held responsible. Entire TDS was deposited with interest prior to notices. Delay constituted a venial breach, w/o dishonest conduct. Orders & notices quashed; writ allowed |
| 214 | CW / 17992 / 2022 (MURLIWALA AGROTECH PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2025 Pet. challenged the transfer order passed u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, transferring assessment proceedings from Udaipur to Delhi, despite an earlier identical order having been quashed by the High Court. HELD: Revenue acted arbitrarily & in disregard of the binding earlier judgment, w/o any material change in circumstances. Transfer is neither reasonable nor justifiable. Order quashed; proceedings directed to continue from the stage prior to transfer. Petition allowed. |
| 215 | ITA / 16 / 2025 (PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2025 Revenue appealed against ITAT order deleting addition of ₹48,49,782/- treated as bogus long-term capital gain u/s 68. HELD: Assessment was u/s 153A and no incriminating material was found during search. Addition was based on mere suspicion and hypothetical presumption regarding share price manipulation, without cogent evidence linking assessee. ITAT rightly deleted the addition. No substantial question of law arose. Appeal dismissed. |
| 216 | CW / 17157 / 2025 (RAM NIWAS DAGA VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/09/2025 Petitioner seeks wide directions on statues, subsidized canteens, liquor control, dress codes, & citation publication through multiple PILs. HELD- the PILs disclosed no bona fide public interest and breached Rule 385-F of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, by suppressing earlier petitions. The issues raised were executive policy matters beyond judicial review. Applying Supreme Court principles on misuse of PIL jurisdiction, all petitions were dismissed with costs and a bar on future PILs. |
| 217 | HC / 249 / 2025 (RAHISUDDIN KHAN VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/09/2025 Peti. Seeks habeas corpus to free his minor grandson from respondent No.5’s illegal custody, restore custody to him, & initiate action for the alleged kidnapping by respondent No.5. HELD-Court held that custody can be decided in writ petition and respondent No.5 concealed material facts, relied on dubious documents, & abandoned the child, rendering her custody illegal. Given the petitioner’s stable, long-term care, custody was rightly restored with safeguards. Petition maintainable. |
| 218 | CW / 13163 / 2025 (MOHAMMAD SALIM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/09/2025 Pet. seek quashing of the advertisement for new fair price shops in already served areas, alleging violation of State guidelines and right to livelihood. HELD— Allotment of fair price shops is a policy matter within State’s discretion; no vested right exists to oppose new shops. The guidelines and Wadhwa Report are advisory, not enforceable. Applying Art 226 principles, Court found no arbitrariness or illegality, relaxation under the 2025 circular was valid, petitions dismissed. |
| 219 | CRLA / 163 / 1997 (DEVI SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/09/2025 Appellant seeks setting aside of his conviction under Section 302 IPC and its conversion to Section 304 Part II with sentence confined to the period undergone. HELD- Court held the incident arose from a sudden quarrel, with no premeditation, intention, or undue advantage; the blow was with the reverse side of an axe, negating murder. Conviction was rightly altered to Section 304 Part II and sentence reduced to the period already undergone. |
| 220 | CRLA / 165 / 1995 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS BRIJ LAL AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/09/2025 Appellant seeks setting aside of the acquittal, contending that the Trial Court erred in discarding the first dying declaration and prays that the respondents be convicted and punished. HELD- Court held that the dying declarations were materially inconsistent, witness’s unreliable, and no clear causal link to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Finding no perversity in the Trial Court’s view, the acquittal required no interference and the appeal was dismissed. |
| 221 | CRLAD / 310 / 2019 (GANPAT LAL VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/09/2025 Appellant seeks alteration of conviction from Sec 302 IPC to Sec 304 Part I IPC, contending absence of premeditation & that the act occurred under sudden provocation during a quarrel. HELD- Court held that the act occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation or intent to kill, falling under Exception 4 to Sec 300 IPC. The single fatal blow, given in heat of passion, made it culpable homicide u/Sec 304 Part I IPC. Having served nine years, sentence reduced to period undergone. |
| 222 | SAW / 1123 / 2024 (THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DR. ALI TAQI) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/09/2025 Appellants seek setting aside of the Single Judge’s order permitting cumulative age relaxation & pray that the writ petitions claiming combined relaxation u/Rule 9 Raj state and subordinate service rules 1973 be dismissed. HELD- that Rule 9 of the 1973 Rules allows only separate, independent age relaxations and contains no authority for cumulative benefit. The advertisement validly barred combining relaxations. The Single Judge’s order permitting cumulative age relaxation was set aside. |
| 223 | CW / 15870 / 2025 (SHAITAN RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/09/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of order cancelling his appointment as Compounder/Nurse, claiming entitlement to bonus marks for experience with Dr. S.R. Rajasthan Ayurveda University u/Rule 19 of 1966 Rules. HELD- Court held that the petitioner’s appointment could not be sustained as it was based on an inapplicable rule. Pet. Was not entitled to bonus marks. Found the cancellation justified, Court upheld the order & dismissed the petition. |
| 224 | CW / 2932 / 2023 (SHREE ARIHANT OIL AND GENERAL MILLS VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/09/2025 Petitioner seeks adjudication of its pending refund claims for input tax credit accrued under the inverted duty structure and challenges the respondents’ inaction as contrary to Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. HELD- The restriction on refund entitlement was arbitrary, ultra vires, and violative of Article 14. Since input tax credit is a vested statutory right, it cannot be curtailed. The impugned action was quashed, and refund applications were directed to be decided afresh. |
| 225 | CRLR / 48 / 2024 (JAISHANKAR SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/09/2025 Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the trial court framing charge under Section 307 IPC and pray for their discharge from the said offence. HELD-the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC—intention and knowledge to cause death—were not made out, as injuries were simple, caused by blunt objects in a sudden fight. The charge under Section 307 IPC was quashed and the revision partly allowed. |
| 226 | CTA / 251 / 2023 (DEVKINANDAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/09/2025 Pet. sought transfer of commercial suits from Bikaner to Jodhpur alleging bias of Presiding Officer based on remarks in earlier case & a pending vigilance complaint. HELD Pendency of an inconclusive complaint doesn’t warrant transfer; permitting would encourage forum shopping. Balance of convenience favoured Bikaner. No compelling ground has been given to for transfer u/s 24 CPC. Apprehension of bias was speculative, insubstantial & legally untenable. Transfer petitions dismissed. |
| 227 | CRLAS / 734 / 2023 (VINOD KUMARI VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/09/2025 Appellant seeks to assail the judgment dated 28.03.2017 passed by the appellate court acquitting the respondents under Sections 494 and 109 IPC and prays for restoration of conviction. HELD- Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the solemnization of a valid second marriage or abetment thereof beyond reasonable doubt. Absence of proof of essential ceremonies and material contradictions in evidence rendered the case unproved, acquittal sustained, appeal dismissed. |
| 228 | SAW / 1107 / 2025 (TARA CHAND KULDEEP VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/08/2025 Appellant seeks quashing of post-retirement notices, asserting they amount to initiation of departmental proceedings without the mandatory Governor’s sanction under Rule 7 of the Pension Rules. HELD- Court held the notices were purely preliminary, issued only to elicit clarification, and did not constitute institution of proceedings under Rule 7(6). As no charges or proposal were issued, the Rule 7 safeguard was not triggered. Appeal dismissed. |
| 229 | CFA / 560 / 2024 (RAVI KANDHARI VS SMT. NABBU ALIAS NARBADA) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/08/2025 Appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment and decree whereby the trial court allowed the respondents’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, dismissing his suit for specific performance as barred by law. HELD- that the trial court erred in mechanically rejecting the plaint without appreciating that the agreement was conditional upon lawful conversion and thus not barred under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The order was set aside and the suit restored. |
| 230 | CRLA / 942 / 2001 (OM PRAKASH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/08/2025 The petitioner prayed that “the conviction cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed by this Court by allowing his appeal,” seeking annulment of conviction and setting aside of sentence. HELD- the conviction could not stand since the prosecution failed to prove the accused’s presence at the scene, the evidence was inconsistent and contradictory, and the treating doctors were not examined, which was fatal to the case; guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence the petition was quashed. |
| 231 | CRLA / 278 / 1996 (KRISHANLAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/08/2025 The petitioner seeks setting aside of his Section 302 IPC conviction, contending false implication, hostile witnesses, and absence of reliable medical or legal proof of guilt. HELD-The Court held that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as key witnesses turned hostile, extra-judicial confession was weak and uncorroborated, and medical evidence inconclusive; thus, conviction under Section 302 IPC was quashed. |
| 232 | SAW / 548 / 2023 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS MAHENDRA SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/08/2025 Appellant aggrieved of the petition being dismissed by Ld. Single Judge reversing the finding of App. authority, where order of punishment of censure was imposed. HELD: The resp, (Asstt. Admin. Officer) has committed a delay in discharging his official functions. All the necessary ingredients of Rule 17 of CCA Rules have been followed by the App. Authority. Authority intimated the incumbent govt. servant, gave him the statement of allegations and also gave reasons in its order. Appeal allowed. |
| 233 | CR / 196 / 2024 (CHANDRA PRAKASH VS MANGILAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/08/2025 Petitioners seek rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed was barred by limitation and improperly valued. HELD- Court held that as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff, being executant of the registered sale deed, was presumed to have knowledge from its execution. The plea of later fraud discovery was untenable. Plaint barred by limitation and rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. |
| 234 | CR / 145 / 2025 (NAURANG VS LRS OF LATE SRI CHUNNILAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/08/2025 Petitioner assailing the order passed by ld. CJ (Jr. Dn.), Sri Ganganagar, rejecting the application raising objections to the maintainability of the execution proceedings. HELD: O 21 R 32(5) CPC gives power to executing court to secure effective compliance of such decrees. JD has forcibly dispossessed them in violation of the decree. The law coupled with the overarching duty of the Court empower it to ensure that the decree-holder’s possession is preserved intact. Petition dismissed. |
| 235 | SAW / 169 / 2025 (THE RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS LAVANSHU SANKHLA) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/08/2025 Pet seeks declaration that eligibility must be determined with reference to the last date of applications, rendering candidates without an LL.B. degree ineligible. HELD- Court rejected Pet’s claim; eligibility must be confined to those holding an LL.B. on the last date. The candidate ‘appearing’ in year 2024 will be treated eligible. The advertisement, read with integral instructions, permitted appearing candidates, supplementing silent rules without mid-process change; appeals were dismissed. |
| 236 | CRLA / 61 / 1999 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS RAM LAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/08/2025 The petitioner prays that the judgment of acquittal dated 06.07.1998 be quashed and set aside, as the trial court gravely erred in law and facts, and the accused Ramlal be convicted u/Section 302 IPC. HELD-The Court dismissed the State’s appeal and affirmed the acquittal, holding that prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the dying declarations were inconsistent, the alleged eyewitnesses unreliable, and law requires consistency and reliability; appeal disposed of. |
| 237 | 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. |
| 238 | CW / 12122 / 2025 (SARLA DEVI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/08/2025 The Petitioner seeks to quash the removal order, be reinstated as Chairperson and member of Napasar Municipality, and restrain inquiry u/Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. HELD- the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that removal order was passed in accordance with law. It found petitioner guilty of unauthorized appointments, thus action u/Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 was justified and reinstatement as Chairperson could not be granted. |
| 239 | CRLA / 687 / 2012 (STATE VS UGMA AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/08/2025 Appellant-State sought reversal of acquittal of five accused under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. HELD-PW-23 and PW-24 were not eyewitnesses; PW-7 and PW-8 turned hostile, with material contradictions regarding the occurrence, motive and place. The Trial Court’s acquittal was a legally plausible view, without perversity warranting appellate interference. Appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed of. |
| 240 | CRLMB / 4520 / 2025 (SMT. MARIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/08/2025 Pet seeks bail u/S 439 CrPC in murder & allied offences case, asserting false implication, circumstantial evidence, & prolonged custody violates her liberty. HELD- The paramount purpose of bail is to ensure accused’s presence during trial proceedings. Prolonged custody, absence of direct evidence, and petitioner’s status as a mother of a minor child warranted bail. Citing Art 21 and proviso for women u/S 437 CrPC, it ruled detention can’t become punishment. Bail granted with conditions. |
| 241 | CRLAS / 1788 / 2024 (MANOHAR LAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/08/2025 Pet seeks to set aside conviction u/NDPS Act, arguing there is no proof that he possessed or controlled the seized contraband or link with the abandoned vehicle. HELD- Court held conviction unsustainable, reiterating that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, disclosure statements u/s 27 IEA were inadmissible, witness testimony failed, no recovery or conscious possession or ownership of alleged vehicle was proved, hence conviction set aside, appeal allowed. |
| 242 | 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 |
| 243 | CRLR / 528 / 2016 (KALURAM VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/07/2025 Petitioner prays for quashing conviction u/s 138 NI Act, urging cheque was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt, as liability stood discharged by prior cash payment. HELD-The Court held that for conviction u/s 138 NI Act, cheque must be for a valid outstanding debt. Here, complainant admitted cash repayment after cheque date, rebutting presumption u/s 139. As no debt remained, conviction was illegal and set aside; petitioner stood acquitted. |
| 244 | CW / 13265 / 2025 (HARISH MADHAN VS KSHEMA POWER AND INFRASTRUCTURE CO. PVT. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/07/2025 The petitioner seeks quashing of the trial court’s order dated 04.03.2025 and refund of full court fees under Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. HELD- the Court held that Section 65-B mandates refund of full court fees where disputes are settled under Section 89 CPC. Settlement in Lok Adalat, even post-decree during execution, entitles refund; denial defeats the object of promoting amicable resolution. Impugned order was set aside. |
| 245 | CMA / 681 / 2008 (PUSHP CHAND VS SMT.MADHU RATHI) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/07/2025 Appellant seeks setting aside of the trial court’s order restoring the withdrawn suit under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, contending the application was barred by limitation and not maintainable. HELD-The Court held restoration under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was not maintainable as suit was withdrawn with authority; application filed after 2 years was time-barred under Article 122. No fraud proved, majority plaintiffs acquiesced. Trial court erred; restoration set aside. |
| 246 | CW / 8005 / 2025 (SHANTI LAL VS SHRI JAGANNATH) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/07/2025 Petitioners seek quashing of trial court’s order rejecting their plea under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC and pray for appointment of a Local Commissioner to ascertain possession and status of disputed land. HELD-The Court held that though commissioners cannot be appointed to collect evidence, in disputes on possession and condition of property, such appointment aids adjudication. Rejection by trial court was unjustified. Order set aside & Commissioner to be appointed with costs borne by petitioners. |
| 247 | CW / 14008 / 2016 (PRAKASH MANDA VS RSRTC AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/07/2025 The petitioner seeks quashing of termination dated 13.05.2015, contending it was stigmatic, punitive, and illegal as no enquiry was held before ending his probationary services as Conductor. HELD- the Court held that termination citing “questionable integrity” was punitive and stigmatic, requiring an enquiry. As no enquiry was conducted, order was unsustainable. Termination quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh per law and natural justice. |
| 248 | 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. |
| 249 | CRLR / 733 / 2012 (MADAN MOHAN AND ANR. VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/07/2025 Petitioners sought quashing of Sessions Judge’s order framing charges u/Secs 306, 406, 120-B IPC, arguing that allegations lacked essential ingredients and continuation of trial was unjust. HELD- the Court held that financial disputes and general distress do not constitute abetment u/Sec 306 IPC, no entrustment for Sec 406 & no unlawful agreement u/Sec 120-B. Charges lacked legal foundation. Revision allowed, order framing charges quashed, petitioners discharged. |
| 250 | 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. |
| 251 | ARBAP / 8 / 2024 (HEERANAND NARWANI VS M/S MANIFEST VENTURES LLP) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/07/2025 The petitioner seeks appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11, Arbitration Act, 1996, to resolve disputes from the LLP Agreement on removal, capital contribution, and partner rights. HELD- the Court held that the LLP Agreement contained a valid arbitration clause; mere allegations of fraud do not bar arbitration unless they vitiate the contract itself. Issues of removal, capital contribution, & valuation are arbitrable. Accordingly, sole arbitrator was appointed. |
| 252 | 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. |
| 253 | 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. |
| 254 | 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. |
| 255 | CRLMB / 5136 / 2025 (SHANTA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/06/2025 Pet. sought anticipatory bail in FIR u/s 8/16 & 8/18 NDPS Act for alleged illicit poppy cultivation. HELD: Allegations based solely on minor co-accused’s oral disclosure w/o corroboration. In the absence of any bar u/s 37 NDPS, there exist no provision that curtail the discretionary power u/s 438 CrPC. Land not in Pet.’s name; no evidence of her possession. Court noted Pet.’s socioeconomic vulnerability & lack of criminal antecedents. S. 37 not attracted. Application allowed. |
| 256 | 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. |
| 257 | 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 |
| 258 | 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. |
| 259 | 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. |
| 260 | 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. |
| 261 | CMA / 127 / 2018 (SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS SAVITRI DEVI AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/05/2025 Appellant insurer challenged MACT award granting ₹9,48,296/- for death of Hariram in an accident. HELD: Tribunal rightly held accident was due to rash & negligent driving. It erred in computing low monthly income; Court reassessed it as ₹12,000/- with 30% future prospects, applying multiplier of 13. Even in insurer’s appeal, compensation can be enhanced under O. 41 R. 33 CPC to do complete justice. Enhanced compensation to ₹14,46,800/- with interest. Appeal disposed of. |
| 262 | 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. |
| 263 | 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. |
| 264 | CW / 13262 / 2013 (BHAJAN LAL AND ANR VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2025 Pet. challenged penalty u/s 76(6) & 76(9) RVAT Act alleging it was passed w/o jurisdiction against Pet. no.1, a driver. HELD: Driver not liable u/s 76(6) which applies only to owner or person authorized in writing. The scope & ambit of S. 76(6) & 76(9) are entirely different & liabilities can’t be fastened to the driver. Orders reflect non-application of mind & were w/o jurisdiction. Reliance on S. 68 to justify driver’s liability was untenable. Petition allowed. |
| 265 | CRLA / 248 / 1995 (TRILOK SINGH AND ORS. VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/05/2025 Appellants assailing the order passed by ld. ASJ, Bikaner, convicting u/s 498-A/34 and 304/34 IPC and to undergo 3 yrs as SI and 7 yrs as RI both concurrently. HELD: In the absence of any credible & cogent evidence regarding cruelty qua dowry demand inflicted upon the deceased soon before her unnatural death, the mandatory legal requirements to attract S. 304-B IPC remain unfulfilled. The presumption u/s 113-B IEA cannot be pressed into service in the prosecution’s favour. Appeal allowed. |
| 266 | CRLR / 26 / 2007 (MADAN SINGH AND ORS. VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/05/2025 Pet. assailing the order passed by the ld JM, City North No.2, Udaipur, taking cognizance against pet. 1 & 2 u/s 494 rw S. 109 - 114 IPC, & against pet 3 & 4 u/s 494 rw S. 109 IPC. HELD: In the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence in the purported 2nd marriage, amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the court. It is axiomatic that criminal law cannot be permitted to become an instrument of harassment when no offence is disclosed against the pet. Petition allowed. |
| 267 | 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. |
| 268 | EP / 3 / 2024 (AMIT VS SHRI GANESH RAJ BANSAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/04/2025 The petitioner seeks to annul the respondent’s election, claiming improper nomination acceptance and non-disclosure of criminal cases, alleging corrupt practices. HELD-The court held that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient details about the criminal cases and alleged corrupt practices. The election petition was vague and lacked specifics. The court emphasized the need for compliance with statutory requirements. The petition was dismissed, and the election upheld. |
| 269 | CRLR / 1300 / 2023 (KAPIL RAM @ KAPIL RAM SINGHANI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/04/2025 Pet. challenged order framing charges u/s 306, 500, 501 & 504 IPC in a case alleging harassment of deceased via WhatsApp leading to suicide. HELD The core element of S. 306 is intentional abetment of suicide. No suicide note/direct evidence linked Pet. to abetment. Witnesses denied his involvement; WhatsApp messages were unsubstantiated. Allegations of harassment w/o any evidence don’t constitute abetment. Defamation & intentional insult charges remained unsustainable. Petition allowed |
| 270 | CRLR / 95 / 2025 (MITHU SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/04/2025 Petitioner assailing the order passed by ld. Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Chittorgarh, dismissing the application u/s 197(2) Cr.P.C. HELD: Pet. was not acting in the course of his official duties at the time of the alleged incident. The petitioner cannot invoke the protections of Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. solely by virtue of being a government employee, as the allegations made by the complainant are unrelated to the performance of his official duties. Petition dismissed. |
| 271 | SAW / 566 / 2024 (ECOSAFE INFRAPROJECTS LLP VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/04/2025 The appellant seeks quashing of the e-auction notice, alleging that its terms and conditions, particularly regarding lease commencement and sale price fixation, are vague, ambiguous, uncertain, and non-transparent. HELD- The Court held that the appellant’s doubts were unfounded and imaginary, as the rules governing the mining lease process were clear. The conditions in the e-auction notice were consistent with the Rules, and no ambiguity existed. The appeal, being sans substratum, was dismissed. |
| 272 | SAW / 1262 / 2024 (ANKITA MATHUR VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/04/2025 Appellant challenged sanction order for prosecution alleging mechanical approval without application of mind. HELD: Sanction upheld as authority examined demand, acceptance, and recovery evidence, including call transcripts. Sanctioning authority has applied its mind to come to the conclusion that it is a fit case for grant of sanction. Judicial review limited to examining the correctness and validity of the order of sanction, not merits of evidence. Appeal dismissed. |
| 273 | CRLAS / 2507 / 2023 (DEEPAK LOHIYA VS NIRMALA DEVI JAIN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2025 Appellant challenged the acquittal of the respondent u/s 138 NI ACT. HELD: The Mere act of sending a notice does not fulfill the statutory obligation, but the notice must reach the accused. Any legally enforceable debt or liability must also be proved. The complainant failed to prove a valid cause of action. Appeal dismissed. |
| 274 | CRLAS / 116 / 2024 (NIRMAL @ MOTA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2025 Appellant assailing the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Sriganganagar, convicting under section 7/25 of the Arms Act. HELD: To convict an accused under Section 7, concrete scientific evidence – such as report from a ballistic expert or a certified laboratory – must be produced to meet the criteria of a prohibited arms defined under Section 2 (1) (i). Appeal partly allowed. |
| 275 | SAW / 1040 / 2023 (KAMLA BAI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/03/2025 Appellant assailing the order passed by the ld. Single Judge, allowing the petition & setting aside the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue. HELD: The finding recorded by the Board of Revenue did not suffer from any apparent violation of law. Finding was essentially based on doc. evidence in the form of spot inspection report. Therefore, it was outside the scope of judicial review. Transaction is in violation of law. Appellant can approach the competent authority. Appeal disposed. |
| 276 | CRLMP / 4150 / 2019 (KALU SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/03/2025 Petitioners challenged the order booking them as co-accused u/s 319 CrPC in a matrimonial cruelty case (Sec. 498-A, 323, 325 IPC). HELD Implication unjustified as contradictions existed between initial statements u/s 161 CrPC & trial testimony. Courts below mechanically applied Sec. 319 w/o scrutinizing material evidence. Booking a new person & ordering de novo trial would be a travesty of justice. Petitioners exonerated; trial to proceed against principal accused. Petition allowed. |
| 277 | CRLMP / 6621 / 2023 (GANESH NARAYAN NAYAK VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/03/2025 Pet. sought quashing of proceedings in Drugs & Cosmetics Act over a defective drug sample. HELD Prosecution violated S. 25(3) by failing to offer reanalysis; complaint time barred beyond 3 yrs. No vicarious liability of nonexecutive directors established. Magistrate failed to conduct mandatory inquiry u/s 202 CrPC. Minor defect (dissolution delay) didn’t affect drug efficacy. Prosecution vitiated by multiple legal lapses. Petitions allowed; relief extended to similarly situated accused |
| 278 | CRLMP / 1044 / 2025 (M/S CIRON DRUGS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/03/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of case No. 17/2023 pending before the Ld. CJM, Jalore. HELD: The prosecution is vitiated by inordinate delays with misapplication of statutory provisions, and lack of material evidence. The chronology of events establishes a clear violation of procedural safeguards. A careful examination of the allegations and test reports reveals that the drug in question does not meet any of the statutory definitions of “spurious” u/s 17B. Petition allowed. |
| 279 | CW / 737 / 2023 (BHIKAM CHAND VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/03/2025 The appellant seeks to assail constitutional validity of a part of provision 50(4) with proviso of RCS (Pension rule) 1996. HELD-The Court held that the rule was arbitrary and read it down to permit withdrawal of voluntary retirement before the effective date, if sought in time, subject to prior approval and based on whether such withdrawal causes any administrative inconvenience. Writ petition allowed. |
| 280 | SAW / 657 / 2023 (NIMMBA RAM VS PREMARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/03/2025 Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer was correct in granting the respondent’s application for opening a new way u/Sec 251-A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act? HELD-The application was held maintainable under Section 251-A of the Raja Tenancy Act, 1955. However, earlier orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh decision in light of new inspection report till then existing arrangement to be continued. Appeal partly allowed. |
| 281 | CRLMP / 1521 / 2025 (RAHMAN KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2025 Pet. challenged bail order requiring 3 gov. employee sureties of ₹1 Lakh each & binding Pet. for 6 months. HELD: SDM’s order quashed as arbitrary; proceedings u/s 126, 135 & 170 BNSS declared illegal. Bail conditions violated Art. 21. Police detention & torture held unconstitutional. Inquiry & disciplinary action directed; No person to be remanded to judicial custody solely for non-production of documents not readily available. Petition allowed. |
| 282 | 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 |
| 283 | CW / 745 / 2023 (SHRAVAN SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/03/2025 Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 2(3) of 1988 Rules (amended 2022), providing category-wise horizontal reservation for ex-servicemen in direct recruitment. HELD: No merit in petitioners’ claim for vertical reservation; horizontal reservation across categories is constitutionally permissible (Saurav Yadav v. State of UP). Horizontal reservation ensures representation of ex-servicemen from all categories (SC/ST/OBC). Amendment upheld; Petition dismissed. |
| 284 | CRLMP / 2477 / 2018 (ROHIT SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/03/2025 Petitioner sought quashing of FIR for offences u/s 383, 385 & 506 IPC. HELD: No extortion committed as the allegations pertain only to a threat, with no delivery of money/property by the complainant. Offence u/s 385 made out as Pet. put the victim in fear in order to commit an extortion, but since nothing was delivered, the offence u/s 383 has not been completed. The incorporation of Sec. 384 in FIR is quashed; investigation to continue u/s 385 & 506 of the IPC. Petition partly allowed |
| 285 | CRLMP / 2849 / 2015 (PARMANAND AND ANR. VS STATE AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/03/2025 Pet. seek quashing of order passed by the ld. Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Pali & the order passed by JM No.2, Pali taking cognizance u/s 420&120B IPC & issued process. HELD: The ld. Trial Court has erred in not taking into consideration that no transaction took place b/w Geeta & Pet. thus, S. 420 IPC not attracted. The ld. JM ordered to issue process against pet. which is bad in law. Revisional Court failed to exercise jurisdiction. Petition allowed |
| 286 | CRLMP / 929 / 2021 (PAWAN GAUR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/03/2025 Petitioner challenged detention u/s 107/151 CrPC, alleging arbitrary arrest during matrimonial dispute counselling. HELD: Routine invocation of these sections w/o any substantial material defeats their purpose. Executive Magistrate’s proforma order & Sessions Judge’s appellate order, held non-speaking & mechanical, violating Art. 21. Court ordered systemic reforms for police training on magisterial duties. Arrest & Detention of the Petitioner held illegal. Petition Allowed. |
| 287 | CRLW / 320 / 2023 (VIKRAM SINGH INDROI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/03/2025 Pet., accused in 259 cases, sought to attend trials via video conferencing (VC) citing logistical hurdles & right to fair & speedy trial under Art. 21. HELD: Physical presence at multiple locations not feasible. Authorities directed to provide VC for all current/future proceedings to prevent them from being rendered idle due to absence of accused. Without VC, it may take unreasonably long time to conclude trial. State urged to amend CrPC to enable VC for undertrials. Petition allowed. |
| 288 | CRLW / 1070 / 2024 (SULEMAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/03/2025 Pet. challenged externment order under Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975, based on two gambling convictions. HELD: Order was passed on one finding that Pet. is a “Goonda”. DM must also be satisfied of conditions u/s 3(1)(b) & (c) (i.e. reasonable grounds for his engagement in offence u/s 2(b)(i) to (viii) & that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him because of his threat). Mere “Goonda” designation insufficient for externment. Petition allowed. |
| 289 | CRLMP / 1171 / 2025 (BHAJAN LAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/03/2025 Pet. sought quashing of FIR u/s 365, 382, 323 & 34 IPC on amicable settlement with complainant. HELD: Settlement doesn’t absolve criminal liability in non-compoundable cases. Allegations involved serious non-compoundable, cognizable & non-bailable offences like kidnapping & armed theft. Medical evidence, witness testimonies & proclaimed offender weakened credibility. Grave offences affecting public order, liberty & security cannot be compromised. Petition dismissed |
| 290 | CW / 14966 / 2024 (RAM NIWAS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/03/2025 Whether the respondents were justified in revoking the petitioners ‘transfer to JE (Degree) cadre after recognizing their civil engineering degrees and updating the seniority list? HELD: Clause (d) Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1973 applies only to those who acquire B.E. or AMIE after appointment. Petitioners had degrees at the time of appointment, making the transfer invalid. Absorption rightly cancelled; no civil wrong caused. Petitions dismissed. |
| 291 | CW / 2888 / 2025 (N.T.P.C. RENEWABLE ENERGY VS THE BOARD OF REVENUE) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/03/2025 Petitioner challenged the order passed by Board of revenue Ajmer dismissing the revision petition under Sec 230 read with Sec.221 Raj tenancy Act. HELD: Revision petition under Sec.230 & 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not maintainable against ad-interim orders passed by subordinate or appellate revenue courts; thus, the writ petition is devoid of force and dismissed. |
| 292 | CW / 3152 / 2025 (GIRIRAJ PUGALIA VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/03/2025 Pet. challenged notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on WhatsApp chats alleging that the chats lacked his name & no documents were seized. HELD: The incriminating chats b/w parties in question regarding the unaccounted cash transactions for plot purchases were clearly reflected & corroborated by specific transactions & digital data. Satisfaction note of AO is valid. S. 65 B not applicable at stage of notice u/s 153C. S. 153C has been rightly exercised. Petition dismissed |
| 293 | CW / 7829 / 2024 (TWINKLE SINGH VS THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/03/2025 Pet. aggrieved by the notice issued by Registrar (Exam.) requiring them to appear in the Efficiency Test for promotion to the post of Personal Asstt./Judgment Writer. HELD: Chance to get selected under 25% vacancy on the basis of the Efficiency Test shall be extended to others who were appointed in the same financial year with pet. The Jnr. Personal Asstt. appointed in 2020 or after cannot seek promotion with batch 2016 against the vacancies that occurred prior to 2nd Mar 2020. Petition allowed. |
| 294 | SAW / 266 / 2020 (LT. COL. EKLAVYA TAK VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/02/2025 Appellant challenged denial of Permanent Commission in Army Dental Corps (AD Corps) under Policy of 1996, which assessed eligibility via three departmental exams HELD: Policy of 1996, prescribing exam-based assessment without considering ACRs, is valid. Appellant participated thrice (2008, 2009, 2011) without protest; now estopped from challenging criteria. Policy of 2012 (considering ACRs) inapplicable to AD Corps. Judicial Review limited to legality, not wisdom, of policy. Appeal Dismissed. |
| 295 | SAW / 1422 / 2014 (AJMER VIDHYUT VITARAN NIGAM LTD. AND ORS. VS MUKESH KUMAR BERWA) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/02/2025 Appellants challenged order directing consideration of respondent’s compassionate appointment post father’s death 17.02.11 HELD Notification dated 24.02.11 barring applicants with >2 children cannot apply retrospectively. No policy was in existence on the date of death nor anything was mentioned which barred respondent’s candidature. Law prevailing on the date of death to be strictly applied. Rejection of candidature would violate the objective to reduce financial distress. Appeal dismissed. |
| 296 | CRLMP / 2100 / 2018 (HEMRAJ VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/02/2025 The petitioner seeks quashing FIR No. 89-2/2018, registered under Sections 9 and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and all further proceedings. HELD-The Court opined that the actions of the accused were in self-defense, aimed at protecting human lives from a panther attack. The incident did not qualify as hunting under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. The FIR was quashed, and all subsequent proceedings were set aside, allowing the petition. The stay petition is disposed of. |
| 297 | CRLMP / 6338 / 2022 (GOPIRAM AGARWAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/02/2025 Petitioner challenged the trial court’s cognizance u/s 143, 448 & 504 IPC, arguing that some offences have not been considered & certain individuals have been exonerated despite the availability of sufficient material. HELD: Dispute is of a civil nature & mere assembly, speech, or slogan-raising does not amount to an unlawful assembly or criminal offence under IPC. Peaceful Assembly upheld u/a 19 (1)(b). No prima facie case made out. Petition dismissed; Connected petition allowed. |
| 298 | CW / 19528 / 2023 (LRS OF PEER SEYYAD JULFIKAR ALI JILANI S/O PEER SEYYAD ANWAR ALI JILANI VS RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAQF) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/02/2025 Whether the CEO of the Raja Waqf Board could delegate powers u/Sec. 32(2) (i) of the Waqf Act, 1995 to a person not falling under the categories in Section 27 of the Act? HELD: The power of attorney issued by the CEO authorizing Sabir Husain to exhibit documents was non-est in law as the CEO is not empowered under Section 27 of the Waqf Act, 1995 to delegate such powers. Hence, the petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 was quashed. |
| 299 | CW / 2707 / 2025 (MADHU KANWAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/02/2025 Pet. challenged the appointment of an Administrator for Rawatbhata Municipality post-tenure expiry, claiming violation of Sec. 322 of the Raj. Municipalities Act, 2009. HELD S. 320 empowers Gov. to appoint an officer to perform the functions of Municipality till a newly constituted elected member of Municipality is established. Sec. 322 applies only when Municipality is dissolved due to incompetence/lack of members; thus, not applicable. Appointment justified. Petition dismissed. |
| 300 | CW / 14073 / 2016 (RAJARAM VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/02/2025 Petitioner, a Head-Constable, challenged dismissal for causing undue influence in recruitment process. HELD: Pet. was not deployed where his nephew was to appear for test, no fault of the Pet., who didn’t inform the higher authorities about his relationship with one of the candidates. Inquiry relied on conjectures without proof. Procedural violations: insufficient reply time to show-cause notice. Acquittal in criminal case highlighted lack of evidence. Dismissal quashed; Petition Allowed. |
| 301 | CW / 875 / 2016 (LIBRA INDIA VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/02/2025 The petitioner seeks the timely completion of Jodhpur Airport’s terminal, improved flight services, and enhanced aviation infrastructure for regional development. HELD- The Court held that poor aviation access in Jodhpur violates Article 21. Directed the State to act per Article 38, DPSP, to ensure infrastructure. Ordered completion of terminal by Oct 2025 to enable access to health, education, and growth, aligning with the petitioner’s plea |
| 302 | CW / 3470 / 2025 (MOOLA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/02/2025 Petitioner challenged the notification creating a new revenue village "Gogaji Ki Jaal," alleging violation of Clause 4 of the Circular dated 20.08.2009. HELD: Naming villages after a person, caste, sub-caste or religion is impermissible. These restrictions, have been imposed keeping in mind the ethos of democracy and larger public interest. Notification dated 20.01.25 is in violation of clause 4 of circular dated 20.08.09; hence quashed. Petition allowed. |
| 303 | CRLMP / 230 / 2016 (TANMAY PATHAK VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/02/2025 Whether the allegations in the FIR satisfy the essential ingredients of an offence u/s 420 & u/s 406 of the IPC? (ii)Whether the dispute is of a civil nature, warranting quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process? HELD: FIR lacked essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Dispute was civil, given criminal colour. Filing such FIR is abuse of process. Court quashed FIR and allowed liberty for civil remedy. Petition allowed. |
| 304 | CRLMP / 7694 / 2023 (HEERA DEVI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/02/2025 Whether the allegations in FIR satisfy the ingredients of an offence u/Sec 447 IPC. (ii) Whether the dispute is civil in nature, warranting quashing of criminal proceedings? HELD- No substantive evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner’s entry was actuated by criminal intent. Where civil litigation is pending between parties, one party can’t be allowed to invoke criminal machinery as a tool to exert undue pressure or to settle civil dispute under the grab of civil allegations. FIR quashed. |
| 305 | CRLMP / 709 / 2013 (SMT.CHANDA DEVI AND ORS. VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2025 Petitioners sought quashing of the summoning order u/s 306 IPC. HELD- Before taking cognizance of the negative final report, reasons for disagreement with the final report is imperative. In case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of an actual act of investigation leading to the suicide; mere allegation of harassment doesn’t constitute an offence u/s 306 IPC. Petition allowed, proceedings quashed, accused exonerated. |
| 306 | CRLMP / 7213 / 2022 (ABDUL SATTAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/02/2025 Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Section 17(4) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, alleging illegal medical practice. HELD: Offences are non-cognizable and bailable; FIR registered without prior approval from Magistrate violates Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Violation of principles of natural justice as FIR was lodged without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Petition allowed. |
| 307 | 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. |
| 308 | CW / 12131 / 2023 (PRATAP RAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/02/2025 Petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondent, not considering the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Asstt. Teacher L. I & II (Eng,). HELD: Condition that graduation course must be completed from an English medium college is arbitrary, unreasonable, & violative of the fundamental rights of thousands of individuals who, despite having pursued their graduation in the Hindi medium, have studied English as one of their subjects. Petitions disposed. |
| 309 | CRLMP / 8867 / 2024 (HARI SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/02/2025 Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. HELD: Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is irretrievably violated. Delay, lack of evidence and absence of witnesses made trial meaningless. High Court exercised powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process. Proceedings quashed for all accused, including those who had not approached the Court. |
| 310 | 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. |
| 311 | EXCIA / 78 / 2018 (M/S MODERN WOLLENS VS THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/01/2025 Appellant challenged denial of excise duty remission for 62 stolen wool bales during transit. HELD: Theft during transit constitutes "loss" under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, as goods were beyond manufacturer’s control. Theft is an unavoidable accident unless the respondent’s negligence caused it. Legislative intent protects bona fide manufacturers from undue tax burden in such exceptional circumstances. Impugned order set aside; remission granted. Appeal allowed. |
| 312 | 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. |
| 313 | SAW / 1178 / 2024 (BALRAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/01/2025 Appeal directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petitions. HELD: Some complaints were made of not receiving water supply for which the size of the outlet of the canal was altered. There is no whisper that the report of the Asst. Engineer on certain grounds was not factually correct. Unless an appropriate case from facts is made out, order could not be held bad only on a technical ground. Petitions dismissed. |
| 314 | CRLMP / 261 / 2025 (KAMLESH SANKHALA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/01/2025 Pet. assailing the order passed by the ld. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, dismissing the criminal revision petition. HELD: The ld. Sessions Judge confined his scrutiny to the narrow confines of the delay condonation application. Dismissal of revision petition on procedural grounds, without meticulous examination of the contentions raised, constitutes a miscarriage of justice. Procedural rules are handmaid of justice, not its mistress. Petition allowed. |
| 315 | CW / 16227 / 2024 (TULCHA RAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/01/2025 Petitioner assails the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Deputy Secretary, Dept. of Personnel on the ground of jurisdiction and competence. HELD: When 2 delinquents whose disciplinary authorities are from different dept. then Chief Secretary or other competent authority from Administrative Reforms & Coordination can pass an order under Rule 18 of CCA specifying the authority for common proceedings, penalty & procedure under Rules 14,16 & 17 CCA Rules 1958. |
| 316 | CMA / 539 / 2020 (M/S MEWAR ASSOCIATES VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/01/2025 Appellant assails the judgment passed in Case No. 144/2018 (original suit). HELD: In an administrative proceeding the general rules of fairness, justice and good conscience must be followed and a commonsensical approach should be adopted. Even in the contractual matters the Employer shall be under an obligation to act fairly and comply with the basic requirements of Art. 14. There was fundamental breach of the contract as the Employer could not perform its essential obligations. Appeal allowed. |
| 317 | 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. |
| 318 | 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. |
| 319 | CRLMP / 7680 / 2024 (BHERA RAM CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/12/2024 Petitioner files the petition u/s 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR for offence u/s 126(2),132,285&221 BNS, 2023, HELD: Offences alleged against the pet. are bailable in nature. The refusal to grant bail, coupled with the prolonged detention of the pet. for 10 days, represents a grave procedural oversight & a miscarriage of justice. Decisions should not be influenced solely by the seriousness of the offence but be guided by specific circumstances of each case. Petition allowed. |
| 320 | CW / 16307 / 2024 (SHAMBOO SINGH VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/12/2024 Petitioner assailing the order issued by Distt. Education Officer placing the petitioner under suspension. HELD: Petitioner’s unruly behaviour cannot be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression. Petitioner’s engagement in political activities and his behaviour definitely falls within the scope of misconduct. The petitioner cannot use freedom to garner his fiefdom. To keep the society in order, self-restraint is necessary while respecting self-esteem of others. Petition dismissed |
| 321 | SAW / 1057 / 2024 (UNION OF INDIA VS JIET MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/12/2024 Appellant appealed against the order passed by the ld. Single Judge allowing the increase of the seats in medical college. HELD:Interim order ought not to have been granted, not inclined to set aside the interim order, since students have paid their fee, admitted, joined & competed about a month of study, but direct the parties to complete their pleadings within 10 days & request the ld Judge to hear the petition within 1 month from the date of completion of pleadings. Appeal disposed |
| 322 | CW / 19773 / 2024 (SMT. KAMLA DEVI VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2024 Whether a daughter of a govt. servant, who becomes a widow/divorcee is entitled to family pension under Rules 66 & 67 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996? HELD: Pet. father died on 20.9.2017 & husband subsequently on 20.2.2023. Age of pet. at the time of filing app. was 73 years. She cannot claim that she was dependant on her father for 40 yrs. Circular being completely contrary to the scheme of rules cannot be given any credence. Petition dismissed. |
| 323 | CRLA / 720 / 2002 (STATE VS RAMDIN AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2024 Appellant preferred appeal u/s 378 CrPC laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal. HELD: Ld. Trial Court had misread the material evidence on record and has adopted a hyper-technical approach in interpreting the testimonies of the witnesses and the docs. The respondents have failed to provide any explanation for the circumstances under which the incident took place. Acquittal of accused - respondents u/s 498-A, 304-B, & 201 IPC is not sustainable. Appeal allowed. |
| 324 | HC / 467 / 2024 (GORKHA RAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/12/2024 Petitioner seeks direction upon the state authorities for production of ‘X’ in the Court; aged about 32 years. HELD: No fundamental right of a person to have a live-in relationship with a woman legally married to another man and, more particularly woman when his own sister. The live-in relationship allegedly entered into between the pet. and ‘X’ is void ab initio. Writ court cannot excercise its discretionary powers as the matter would only sanctify immorality in society. Petition dismissed. |
| 325 | CW / 5313 / 2024 (SHRI ISHWAR PRASAD VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/12/2024 Petitioner seeks to challenge appointment of the Add. Adv. Generals & Law Officers issued the circular ignoring the judgment in State of Punjab & Anr v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Anr. HELD: The petition is conveniently silent on the factual aspects such as the eligibility, credibility, efficiency, etc. Petitioner did not plead that the law officers appointed do not possess expertise to safeguard the interest of the State. Petition founded on vague allegations. Petition dismissed. |
| 326 | CW / 16382 / 2024 (DEVENDRA PRAJAPAT VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/12/2024 Petitioner assails the order passed by Principal, PM Shri School Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya denying the application for admission on the ground that he has not undertaken the studies of one full Academic Session in III standard. HELD: Since the country was facing Covid-19, the schools were closed and clause 4.4 of Selection test of 2024 has to be read in a liberal way. In the existing circumstances, benefit be extended to the petitioner. Denial of admission is arbitrary. Petition disposed. |
| 327 | CW / 9717 / 2018 (DHARNIA MOTORS VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/11/2024 Petitioner seeks to claim transitional credit of excise duty made through Credit Transfer Document by way of filing TRAN-3. HELD: The Rule clearly provides that initially 90 days period is allowed, further extendable to 90 days. On the recommendation of the GST Council, the period could be further extended. There cannot be any more liberal POL for submission of statutory declaration. It is a case of the resp. that even TRAN-3 declaration was submitted beyond prescribed period. Petition dismissed |
| 328 | CW / 13123 / 2024 (SUBRATA SAHA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/11/2024 Petitioner assailing the order passed by the resp. no.2 – Joint Secretary, Gen. Admin. (Group-V) Department compulsorily retiring the petitioner by invoking rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. HELD: Respondent’s approach was highhanded, partisan and arbitrary. 3 months’ notice & opportunity of hearing as per Rule 53(2) was not given. The competent Committee has not objectively considered the record and has passed the order vindictively. Petition allowed |
| 329 | ITA / 68 / 2009 (M/S ARUN COTTON COMPANY VS A.C.I.T.CIRCLE,SRIGANGANAGAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/11/2024 Appellant filed appeal assailing the order passed by ICAT affirming the order of CIT(A), Bikaner. Partnership firm of the appellant was dissolved which was intimated to Assessing officer. ITR & Audit Report were also sent to concerned authority, still penalty was imposed. HELD: Once the returns and audit report with all other required documents, are filed within the permissible time period before one of the authorities then he cannot be said to not having a reasonable cause. Appeal Allowed. |
| 330 | COAP / 2 / 2008 (OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S PITTIE VS N.N.PAI AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/11/2024 Whether an Ex-Director of the company, having resigned is liable to be proceeded against or they are liable to be exempted? HELD: Financial year for 1997-98 commenced from 01.04.1997 and the applicant resigned on 31.03.1997. Therefore, the financial irregularities and the allegations with regard to illegal waiver of the debts was attributable to those Directors, who were acting on behalf of the company and handling day to day affairs. The report of the CA has been misread. Application allowed. |
| 331 | CW / 12253 / 2019 (M/S GOTAN LIMESTONE KHANIJ UDYOG PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/11/2024 Whether conversion of the petitioner’s company from a Partnership firm & transfer of its shares to UTCL validated by Raj. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 & whether the Mineral rights can be entered in the name of pet. HELD: In transfer of mineral rights by way of sale, etc., a separate transfer deed should be executed. In ostensible transfer prior consent of competent authority is a sine qua non. Mineral rights should be dealt with doctrine of public trust. Petition dismissed |
| 332 | CW / 7954 / 2024 (SMT. SUMAN LATA KAPUR VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/11/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of the termination of her services by the resp. and seeks to quash the termination order and reinstate her in service. HELD: The post-retiral benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity, State Insurance etc. are the earnings of the pet. and the same cannot be taken away. Taking away or withholding such benefits, after retirement, amounts to depriving her from the right to life. The services of the pet. shall be treated as resigned instead of termination. Petition disposed |
| 333 | CRLMP / 7523 / 2024 (AMIT KUMAR DAVE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of orders passed by the Ld. ACJM No.1, Jalore for dishonour of a cheque for an amount of Rs.9,20,000. HELD: Presence of an accused in a matter of the kind in hand, where proceedings are semicriminal/ civil in nature, should ordinarily not be insisted upon, if an application is moved for a particular hearing, unless the trial court needs to either examine the under-trial or his statement is to be otherwise recorded. Impugned order is set aside. Petition disposed. |
| 334 | CW / 18944 / 2026 (VAIBHAV LODHA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner seeking interim bail on medical grounds of his 64-year-old mother, requiring surgery for a total knee replacement. HELD: Petitioner’s rights are severely curtailed and his entire family is suffering. His mother urgently requires knee replacement surgery, but is forced to wait for her son to be available to take care for her during the pre & post operative period. Continuous incarceration without the commencement of a trial infringes Art. 21 of the Constitution. Petition allowed. |
| 335 | CRLW / 2177 / 2024 (AMAR SINGH RATHORE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking his interim bail for 3 months on medical grounds of his wife. Held: Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, also encompasses right to live with dignity as a human being which necessary entails to act as a good husband in terms of the marital wows taken during the saptapadi ceremony as per Hindu rituals. The petitioner is directed to be released on temporary bail for a period of 60 days. Petition allowed. |
| 336 | CRLW / 2276 / 2024 (YUDHISHTER SINGH RAJPUROHIT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner seeking interim bail for his father to enable him to attend his own marriage. HELD: Art. 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and also encompasses the right to dignity i.e. right of a father to attend marriage of his son. Such a right cannot and ought not be curtailed. Nature of prosecution evidence is documentary, which has been seized, and there is no likelihood of tempering with the same. Petition allowed. |
| 337 | CRLMP / 7618 / 2024 (VEDPRAKASH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of an order passed by the ld. ASJ, Sri Doongargarh, Churu dismissing the revision and upheld the cognizance passed by ld. JM. HELD: Matters of personal liberty ought not to taken so mechanically. Summoning the pet. without effecting service of summons does not stand justification Directing the forfeiture of the bail-bonds of the pet. do not stand the judicial scrutiny. Original bail bonds restored. Petition disposed. |
| 338 | CRLMP / 7493 / 2024 (CHALAKDAN CHARAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of order passed by ld. ASJ, Jodhpur dismissing the revision petition and affirming the order passed by ld. JM. HELD: Matters of personal liberty ought not to be taken so mechanically. Summoning the petitioner without effecting service of summons or bailable warrants, by directly issuing arrest warrants on a protest petition does not stand to justification in this case. Orders modified i.e. arrest warrant converted to bailable warrant. Petition disposed. |
| 339 | CRLMP / 7541 / 2024 (AMIT KUMAR DAVE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of an order passed by the Ld. ACJM No.2, Jalore for dishonour of a cheque. HELD: Directions issued against the sureties u/s 446 CrPC has serious procedural fallacy comimitted by magistrates and cannot be sustained. Presence of an accused particularly in a matter of the kind in hand, where proceedings are semicriminal/ civil in nature, should ordinarily not be insisted upon. Original bail bonds restored. Petition disposed. |
| 340 | CRLMP / 6739 / 2024 (PRITI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/10/2024 Petitioner-victim seeks quashing FIR lodged through her father against her live in partner/accused u/s 354(a), 376D, 376(2)(n), 450 & 34 IPC & S. 5L/6 POCSO as well as some provisions of SCST Act. HELD: Prosecutrix is major as per her Aadhar card. She being an adult is knowledgeable about her rights & responsibilities. Hence, Relationship between Petitioner and accused identified as consensual. Petition allowed. |
| 341 | CRLAS / 286 / 2024 (PREMCHAND VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/10/2024 Appellants aggrieved by Conviction order passed u/s 8/22 & 8/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against appellant 1&2 respectively. HELD: Absence of independent witnesses, collection of samples without ensuring presence of magistrate, non-compliance of Sec. 52A NDPS & delay in sending samples to Forensic Science Laboratory renders the authenticity of sample doubtful. Appellants set free with execution of bond to appear further. Appeal allowed. |
| 342 | CRLMP / 7095 / 2024 (DINESH @ DINIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/10/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of order 09.01.2024 passed by Learned Spcl. Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act Barmer. HELD: Direction of Trial Court for Forefeiture of Bail Bonds & initiation of proceedings against surety u/s 446 Cr.P.C. to be set aside as no notice was served before cancellation of Bail Bonds denying him the opportunity for explaining reasons of non-cancellation. Hence, violation of personal liberty. Petition disposed & trial to proceed in accordance with legal provisions. |
| 343 | CW / 10947 / 2024 (NITISHA CHOUDHARY VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/10/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of ongoing selection process for Ayurveda Compounder/Nurse Junior grade. HELD: Adding on half of the vacancy after almost 8 months of commencement of process by splitting the vacancy is beyond the purview of Rule 16 and is illegal and unreasonable as the candidates who became eligible subsequently will be deprived from participating in the recruitment process. Petition allowed. |
| 344 | EP / 2 / 2024 (JITENDRA KUMAR VS SHRI VISHVARAJ SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/10/2024 Matter came upon an application under O 7 R 11 CPC as preferred on behalf of Resp. No. 1 for dismissal of election petition. HELD: No breach of provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951 & of guidelines dictated under Public Interest Foundation’s case. Election petition rejected on the count that it does not disclose any cause of action and the relief No. 2 as prayed cannot be granted to the petitioner. Application under O 7 R 11 allowed. |
| 345 | CRLA / 1116 / 2015 (GOPAL VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/10/2024 Appellant-accused assails judgment of conviction by Add. Sessions Judge,Udaipur u/s 302, 326 & 329 IPC HELD: The crime committed without any premeditation, owing to a sudden fight in a heat of the moment and thus falls within the definition of Culpable Homicide u/s 299 IPC. The period undergone sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Appeal partly allowed. |
| 346 | CR / 172 / 2006 (C.T.O.,SURATGARH VS M/S EX.ENGINEER,BORDER FENCING DIV.) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/10/2024 Whether the interest on assessed tax payable from the date of first assessment order or subsequent order? HELD: When the first demand notice is not satisfied within prescribed time & original assessment order set aside, the interest should be paid u/s 58 of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1954 from date of first assessment order & not fresh assessment order. Petition allowed. |
| 347 | CW / 17161 / 2024 (SUO MOTO VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2024 This Court is concerned about Raj. Patrika & Dainik Bhaskar report reflecting cutting 1.19 lakh trees to form Pumped Storage Project in Baran Distt. HELD: Rt. to a green & healthy environment is considered as a facet of Rt. to life enshrined in A.21 of the Constitution. Duty of the state to preserve, protect & revive environment. Matter be listed as PIL. Ld. DSG & AAG directed to supply copy of reply along with docs. to appoint Amicus Curiae to render assistance to the court |
| 348 | CRLMP / 5928 / 2024 (CHATAR SINGH CHOUHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of an FIR u/s 191(2), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2)/(3) and 74 of BNS, 2023. HELD: Perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that the complainant has not suffered any grievous injury. Furthermore, the nature of injury suffered by her was found to be simple and S. 115(2) of BNS has already been invoked. As far as S. 117(2) of BNS is concerned, no ingredients are made out. S. 117(2) of BNS invoked in the FIR is directed to be dropped. Petitions disposed. |
| 349 | CRLMB / 12285 / 2024 (MAHESH KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2024 Petitioner seeks restoration of liberty u/s 439 Cr.PC/483 BNSS HELD: Considering the facts that key witnesses came forward after an year and delay in providing crucial evidence makes accuracy of testimony doubtful. Complainant not informing police regarding the information received from witnesses and alleged motive stemming from an event in 2012 appears speculative. Petitioners should be released on Bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and 2 surety bonds. Bail allowed |
| 350 | CRLR / 898 / 2003 (SUBASH CHANDRA VS STATE AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2024 Petitioner assailing the order passed by ld. Special Judge, Sriganganagar convicting the resp. No.2 & granting the benefit of S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. HELD: Ld. Trial Court rightly giving benefit of probation to resp. No.2. The petitioner, owing to his personal sense of retribution, cannot be unnecessarily allowed to contest the benefit of S. 4 of Probation of Offenders Act granted to the resp. No.2. Orders of both the courts below are very well reasoned. Petition dismissed. |
| 351 | CRLMB / 10594 / 2024 (RUPA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2024 Petitioner seeks Bail for offences u/s 326(G), 331(3), 190, 189(2), 305, 301, 324(4), BNS 2023. HELD: Burning a dead body in the complainant's residence without performing the proper rites and using the body in such a criminal manner is highly disrespectful and an act of desecration. By looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the pet., the antecedents of the applicants, the pet. are not entitled to be released on bail. Application dismissed |
| 352 | CRLMB / 10631 / 2024 (RAJU LAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2024 Petitioner and seeks bail for the offence under S. 363, 366, 342, 376 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. HELD: Minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony are not sufficient grounds to grant bail. The POCSO Act creates a presumption of guilt once the victim's testimony is found credible. The burden then shifts to the pet. to prove his innocence and in the cross-examination of the victim, the pet. has failed to provide any convincing defense. Bail dismissed. |
| 353 | CRLMB / 12055 / 2024 (JASSA RAM @ JASA RAM @ JASIYA @ JASWANT @ JASU VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2024 Petitioner seeks bail in respect of offence punishable under S. 8/15 of the NDPS Act. HELD: Petitioner’s mere ownership or connection to the vehicle does not conclusively imply his knowledge or actual involvement in the crime. Confessions made by pet. to police officer while in custody are not admissible as evidence u/s 25 of the IEA. Pet. has substantial grounds to challenge the prosecution's case, and the rigor of S. 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is duly satisfied. Bail granted. |
| 354 | CMA / 714 / 2024 (UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS PUSHPA KANWAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/10/2024 Petitioner assailing the judgment passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner where petition u/s 163-A of the Act was allowed. HELD: A bare perusal of the S. 164 and 163-A makes it clear that the compensation amount to be awarded in case of death, in the matters governed by both sections is, five lakh rupees. The compensation as awarded in the present matter is Rs.5 lakh with interest. No interference in the compensation amount as awarded. The present appeal stands disposed of. |
| 355 | CRLMP / 6744 / 2024 (REKHA GURJAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/10/2024 Prosecutrix (alleged victim) along with her live-in partner seeking quashing of an FIR for the alleged offence u/s 363 IPC. HELD: The complainant-father's claim of his daughter being minor is self-contradictory. The material annexed to the petition, including the live-in relationship agreement & Aadhaar cards, indicates that both petitioners are adults and of marriageable age. In light of this, it does not appear that the ingredients of S. 363 IPC are attracted. Petition allowed. |
| 356 | CW / 3789 / 2024 (SMT. BHANWRI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/10/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by rejection of application for transfer of license issued to her husband for running motor driving school HELD: No provision in Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 & Motor Driving School Registration Scheme 2018 for transfer of License on the death of licensee & so bounded duty upon courts to grant equitable relief. Eligibility of petitioner to be decided by Resp. as per Rules of 1989. Petition disposed. |
| 357 | CRLMP / 6735 / 2024 (TARSEM SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/10/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of an FIR offences u/s 318(4) r/w 316(2) of the BNS, 2023. HELD: It appears that having lost the case before the civil court, as a counter blast the present FIR has been registered as collateral means to put pressure on the petitioner to succumb to the demand of the complainant. Thus, a criminal culpability is being fastened on the pet. where none exists. No ingredients of either S. 316(2) or S. 318(4) of BNS, 2023 are made out. Petition allowed. |
| 358 | CRLMP / 3674 / 2024 (SALIM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/09/2024 Petitioner (Husband) seeks quashing of an FIR for the offences u/s 376(2)(N), 384, 323, 342 & 354 IPC. HELD: Resp. No.2 and the pet. got married subsequent to the unsavoury incident which led to registration of the FIR in question. Parties are enjoying a bonhomie & leading a happy, tranquil and peaceful family life. It would be travesty of justice to put the accused to undergo the harassment and humiliation of the trial, which would result in his acquittal. Petition allowed |
| 359 | CRLMB / 12292 / 2024 (GOVIND SUKHWAL VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/09/2024 Pet. seeks interim bail for attending last 12th day ritual of his deceased grandmother. HELD: Based on humanitarian grounds, and for the interests of justice, interim bail application of the accused-pet. is allowed for a period of 3 days from 28-09-2024 to 30-09-2024, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 5 lakh along with 2 sound sureties each worth Rs. 2.5 lakhs, and one being the relative of the convict and possessing docs. of immovable property in his name. Interim Bail granted. |
| 360 | CRLMB / 11651 / 2024 (SATYA NARAYAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/09/2024 Petitioner seeks restoration of their liberty on bail-bond. HELD: It is the primary duty of the officer u/s 50 NDPS Act, to inform the person that he has the right to get searched in the presence of the magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. No official document is present which reflects that the Seizure Officer (Sub Inspector) was authorized to take charge as SHO. Hence, non-compliance of mandatory provisions of sections 50, 41 & 42 NDPS Act. Bail granted with personal bond to be furnished. |
| 361 | CRLMP / 6527 / 2024 (MARU RAHUL NARESHBHAI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/09/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing FIR u/s 406 & 420 IPC and 66C & 66D of IT Act. HELD: Formal Notices regarding joining of investigation were only issued to 22 accused persons, and not to the petitioners. Prosecution to proceed further by following the procedure u/s 193(9) BNSS by taking permission from the Ld. Trial Court. Petitioners not to be summoned without express permission of Ld. Trial Court. Petition disposed accordingly. |
| 362 | CRLMP / 6529 / 2024 (KALAWATI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/09/2024 Petitioners are seeking quashing of an FIR for an alleged offence u/s 420 of IPC. HELD: Even if the prosecution's narrative is accepted, it reveals that the purported forged signature was used in an application submitted before the SDM Padampur. Furthermore, the complainant did not file a formal complaint with the SDM. U/s 340 and 195 CrPC, only the SDM or another competent authority can initiate action after an inquiry. No ingredients of S. 420 IPC are made out. Petition allowed. |
| 363 | CRLMP / 1375 / 2023 (GAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/09/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR against him u/s 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 65 of IT Act. HELD: Pet. not been named as accused in any of the chargesheets, and No substantive evidence against him found after investigation. U/S 193(9) of BNSS, no further investigation can take place without the permission of the trial court, where a report has already been filed against the prime accused. Petition disposed. |
| 364 | CW / 17062 / 2023 (AKSHAY KUMAR VAISHNAV VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/09/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by non-grant of experience certificate in desired format & bonus marks for selection process of Ayurved Compounder/Nurse. HELD: Petitioners entitled to experience certificate as Yoga Instructors only but not entitled to get benefit of bonus marks as nature & kind of work of YI is different to that of Ayurveda Nurse/Compounder. Writ Petition disposed accordingly. |
| 365 | 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 |
| 366 | 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 |
| 367 | CW / 13204 / 2024 (GOVERDHAN KUMAR VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/09/2024 Pet. prays merit to be considered and not the date of appointment for the seniority of LDCs and Rule 285 of the Raj. Panchayati Raj. Rules 1996 to be followed. HELD: Respondents required to adhere to Rule 285 of rules of 1996 and directed to re frame the seniority list taking into consideration petitioner’s position in merit list prepared by Distt. Establishment committee at the time of their appointment & not their date of joining/appointment in accordance with law. Petition disposed of |
| 368 | SAW / 184 / 2007 (NATHU LAL VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/09/2024 Pet. assails dismissal of petitions against notification & declaration & payment of compensation disputed. HELD: Non-compliance u/s 4&6 requiring publication in 2 newspapers results in no knowledge to affected parties about Govt. intent to acquire land. Mere preparation of cheque not sufficient for proving compensation offered. Under Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act 2013,proceedings for Right to Fair Compensation be start afresh. Petition allowed |
| 369 | CW / 15215 / 2024 (NARENDRA KUMAR KHODANIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/09/2024 Pet. requests U.O. notice be quashed. HELD:The Inquiry u/s 39(1) of the Act of 2009 was done by a competent authority and regarding later notice, the maxim ‘Delegatus Non Potest Delegare’ cannot be applied to administrative actions. Asstt. Dir. asked Dy. Dir. which is not considered a delegation of power. Pet. is allowed to put his defense qua all the allegations against him before the competent authority within 15 days which shall be considered before passing final order. Pet. dismissed. |
| 370 | 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. |
| 371 | CRLW / 1131 / 2024 (DHAGALI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/09/2024 Petitioner assails appellate order passed by Sessions Judge Jodhpur whereby accused acquitted u/s 447 & 427 but sentenced u/s 323/34 IPC & desires additional charges u/s 354IPC. HELD: Eye witness Rama Ram considered to be interested witness as his daily wages are paid by the complainant, hence his testimony not considered. Additional charges could have been requested at the Trial or appellate stage via application but not relevant as of now. Petition dismissed. |
| 372 | CRLMP / 3205 / 2024 (SAPNA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/09/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR under section 420, 406, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC & alleges Complainant-wife of forgery of marriage certificate. HELD: The marriage date has been rectified by order of Permanent Lok Adalat, Nagaur & no unlawful gain specifically derived by Petitioners from such forgery. No alleged offences proved as no essential elements identified. FIR found to be abuse of process of law for the settlement of personal grudges. Petition allowed |
| 373 | CRLMP / 6359 / 2024 (ARBAZ VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/09/2024 Petitioner is challenging the impugned order which dismisses his application made u/s 94 & 348 of BNSS seeking CCTV footage, Call Location & Tower Location. HELD: The respondent must be given the proper opportunity to secure all his evidences, otherwise leading to failure of justice. If the CCTV footage is not protected, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the accused, may get deleted from data record by sheer passage of time. Petition allowed. |
| 374 | CRLMP / 6040 / 2024 (NIRMALA PUROHIT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing FIR at Police Station Mathania, Jodhpur u/s 61(2)(a), 62, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 336(4), 340(2), 341(2), 339, 342(1), 342(2) & 351(3) of BNS 2023 for misrepresentation in Aadhar as an Indian National. HELD: No misrepresentation or impersonation as alleged against Petitioner proved u/s 318(4) & 336(3) of BNS. Malafide intention of complainant identified giving a criminal angle to a civil dispute which is an abuse of process of law. Petition allowed. |
| 375 | CRLMP / 1558 / 2023 (SURENDRA KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2024 Petitioner challenges the order passed by ld. Judge, Special Court, Pali, rejecting the revision petition. HELD: Order passed by the ld Trial Court is premised on the reasoning that the alleged defamatory statement pertained to Surendra Surana's separation from the Jain Shwetambar Terapanth Sect, made in a religious context, and did not show harm to his reputation. The Acharya expressed goodwill toward Surana. Pet. failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation. Petition dismissed. |
| 376 | CRLMP / 6309 / 2024 (URVASHI BISHNOI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2024 Petitioner as well as the respondent seeks the quashing of the FIR and proceedings under Sections 341, 323, 354, 509 & 34 of IPC. HELD:For restoring societal peace and familial harmony, the Court stated that the main objective is to strengthen family bonds and not to perpetuate discord among family members. The allegations stem a family scuffle rather than any criminal intent or grievous wrong doing. FIR & all related proceedings quashed; Petitions allowed. |
| 377 | CRLMP / 2420 / 2024 (SUCHI SARDANA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions judge Bikaner in which revisional court allowed the revision petition & remanded matter back to trial court for a fresh hearing. HELD: Reasoning of revision court is that, no allegations of forgery proved if the document in question is not alleged to be created by an individual, which is sound and sufficient. Petition dismissed. |
| 378 | 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. |
| 379 | CRLMP / 485 / 2024 (KISHORE SINGH MERTIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2024 Pet. seeks quashing FIR u/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. HELD: No mens rea & fraudulent intent identified. Core allegation relates to forgery of property docs. following the death of complainant’s father. Such dispute should be resolved through civil litigation. Criminal law cannot be used to settle civil disputes. FIR appears to be an attempt to escalate family property dispute into a criminal case. Hence, FIR quashed & Petition allowed. |
| 380 | CRLMP / 5385 / 2024 (MUKESH KUMAR KHEDAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2024 Petitioner impugned the order dismissing application u/s 207, 208 Cr.P.C. requesting access to evidence collected during investigation. HELD: Denying the petitioner’s access to crucial evidence violates his fundamental right under article 21 which deals with Right to a Fair Trial. For the prevention of miscarriage of justice, the trial court should ensure to provide relevant documents and evidences to the accused. Petition allowed. |
| 381 | CRLMP / 7708 / 2023 (HIMANI VISHNOI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of charge sheet filed u/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. HELD: No criminal intent proved & failure of bank to conduct proper due-diligence, verify authenticity of the mortgaged property documents before sanctioning loan. Unreasonable delay of 3 years in lodging FIR and furthermore grant of ‘No Dues Certificate’ proves no alleged offences against the Petitioner. Petition allowed. |
| 382 | CRLA / 98 / 1995 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS ANGREY SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/09/2024 Appellant-State assailing the judgment passed by the Addl. Sessions Court, Raisinghnagar where the accused was acquitted of the charge u/s 302 IPC. HELD: Ignorance of minor contradictions in testimonies of 3 eye witnesses & corroborative evidences is a patent error of law by trial Court. No other view, other than the one of convicting of accused in this case. Life Imprisonment and 6 months RI given. Appeal allowed. |
| 383 | CRLMP / 8048 / 2023 (VINAY SURI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/09/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing FIR u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. HELD: Misleading court by getting FIR regstd. against Petitioner. Complainant claims that cheques were not issued to the Pet. but rather, to Richhpal Sing, but as Negotiable Instruments were obtained from the Pet., he will be considered beneficiary owner of same. No alleged offences proven as no essential ingredients found, though, if any legitimate debt found, proceedings u/s 138 NI Act will be adjudicated. FIR quashed. |
| 384 | CW / 13561 / 2024 (SURENDRA CHOUDHARY VS RAJASTHAN STAFF SELECTION BOARD) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/09/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of result of the ‘Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant’ published by Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, and requests that the marks of deleted questions shall not be considered. HELD: Deletion of questions from a particular subject & distribution of their marks proportionately in the remaining questions of same subject does not make any discrimination between the candidates. Petition dismissed. |
| 385 | CMA / 1001 / 2024 (ANKITA KOTHARI VS SUNIL KUMAR DHARMENDRABHAI SHAH) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/09/2024 Appellant preffered appeal against the judgment passed by ld. Family Court, Udaipur dismissing grant of divorce, Permanent alimony & possession of her stridhan. HELD: Ex parte divorce already granted & the same relief cannot be claimed again as it is clearly barred by the principle of Res Judicata. Stridhan is absolutely property of a woman. Appeal partly allowed, impugned order quashed to the extent of dismissal of the application qua permanent alimony & for stridhan. |
| 386 | CRLMP / 3421 / 2024 (SAPNA NIMAWAT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/09/2024 Pet.(SC/ST) seeks quashing FIR u/s 448, 427, and 143 IPC. HELD: Caste-based discrimination identified on the part of Trustees, violates the Rights of the pet. under Art. 25 of the Constitution. No Electronic evidence proves that there was any forceful entry or damage to property contrary to the alleged offences of mischief, criminal trespass and unlawful assembly. Every citizen has the Right to offer prayers in a temple and denial of such access is unacceptable. Petition allowed. |
| 387 | CRLMP / 6148 / 2024 (NAHID AKTHAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/09/2024 Pet. seeks quashing FIR u/s 420, 406, 494 & 120B IPC HELD: The concealment of second marriage as per husband of Pet. without proof does not attract offences u/s 406 & 420 IPC. The FIR is filed for undermining a binding maintenance order passed by family court and is an abuse of process of law. Pet. directed to join investigation for determining whether Cog. offence on her part committed or not. Prior notice u/s 35 BNSS to be given. FIR partly quashed. Petition partly allowed. |
| 388 | CRLMP / 4286 / 2024 (PAWAN KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/09/2024 Petitioner assails the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar regarding allowing interim maintenance to his wife and two minors. HELD: It is the moral & legal obligation of the Petitioner; being a husband as well as the father, to maintain his wife and 2 minor children as wife is unemployed. Ensuring interim maintenance fosters equity and fairness, preventing undue hardships to the Resp./Wife while the case is pending. Petition dismissed. |
| 389 | SAW / 835 / 2024 (GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/09/2024 Appellant is aggrieved by impugned order regarding deduction from the running bills to recover compensation for delay. Maintainability of writ petition is under question. HELD: 10% deduction in the bills was held arbitrary in nature and the contention to keep it under ‘security head’ is unjust. The order by Chief Project Engineer is quashed and Writ petition is maintainable. Amount which is deducted from the running bills shall be refunded to the appellant firm. D.B. Special Appeal allowed. |
| 390 | CW / 13356 / 2024 (JORAWAR SINGH RATHORE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/09/2024 The petitioner challenges the notification whereby an administrator is appointed qua the newly constituted gram panchayat. Held: The appointment of an administrator for Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura was beyond jurisdiction since the complete Gram Panchayat had never been dissolved & new one was reconstituted. Thus, the provisions of Sec. 95 and 101 (a) & (c) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, did not apply. Notification quashed. Petition allowed. |
| 391 | CRLMP / 2317 / 2013 (CHHINDER SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/08/2024 Pet. assailing dismissal of rev. petition upholding the trial court order taking cognizance u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. HELD: There was error on the part of the trial court while taking cognizance ignoring the Negative Final Report by IO. Cognizance must be taken after judicious application of mind. No caste-based remarks were made by the pet. at a public place and for disagreeing with IO report, reasoning has to be given. Impugned orders quashed. Pet. allowed. |
| 392 | CRLR / 707 / 2006 (SURENDRA SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/08/2024 Pet. assailing the order passed by Ld. JM 1st Class, Osian,Distt. Jodhpur acquitting the resp. 2-6 of offences u/s 147,149&448 IPC. HELD:Prosecution's case weakened due to the absence of direct eyewitness testimony & crucial documentary evidence. Court ought not to reappreciate evidence unless there is a gross error or illegality. The trial court’s view is based on rational interpretation of the evidence & aligns with the principles of criminal jurisprudence.Petition dismissed |
| 393 | CRLR / 996 / 2005 (PREMRAJ VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/08/2024 Pet. assailing an order passed by the ld. ASJ, Pali HQ, Jaitaran, Distt. Pali. HELD: The reasoning drawn by the ld. appellate Court appear to be sound and supported by the evidence. The acquittals u/s 147,148, &149 IPC are well justified and the modified convictions u/s 324,325,323 &447 IPC reflect the appellate court's proper appreciation of evidence. The decision to release the convicts on probation is in line with the principles of restorative justice. Petition dismissed |
| 394 | CRLMP / 869 / 2024 (RAM LAL PATIDAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/08/2024 The petitioners assailing the FIR and charge-sheet for alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and aggrieved of unjust delay in trial. HELD: Unreasonable delay of over 18 years in concluding the trial after registration of FIR violates their right to a fair and speedy trial. The prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence without any plausible cause and present a strong case against petitioners number 2 to 4 hence charge sheet against them quashed. Petition disposed. |
| 395 | CRLMP / 5715 / 2024 (RAMANDEEP @ RAMI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/08/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangariya, Hanumangarh, regarding rejection of his application for recording his testimony via video conferencing. HELD: The physical presence of the petitioner in the court hearing must be directed by the Trial Court, only when it is essential, by recording appropriate reasons. Otherwise, Video Conferencing may be allowed as per Video Conferencing Rules framed by the Rajasthan High Court. Petition disposed of. |
| 396 | CRLMP / 2887 / 2024 (NAINI DEVI @ NENI DEVI @ NEHA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/08/2024 Petitioners seeks quashing of FIR u/s 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC. HELD: Bald allegations lacking any specific particulars do not make out a prima facie case against the Petitioner No. 3 to 6. Allegations appear to have been made with a collateral motive stemming from matrimonial acrimony. FIR quashed qua pet. 3 to 6. Notice u/s 41A CrPC to be given to Pet. No. 1 & 2 if arrest warranted. Petition disposed. |
| 397 | CW / 12829 / 2024 (GOURAV PALIWAL VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/08/2024 In NEET (UG) Exam, OMR Sheet and Test Booklet of the petitioner was cut during opening process but not changed and negative marks given for unattempted question. Grievance unheard hence this writ petition. Held: Petitioner has been made to suffer for fault of others. Q. 38 be treated as unattended & answer qua Q.50 be checked & if option given by him is correct, marks be awarded. Revised marksheet be issued & be considered for second round of counseling. Petition allowed. |
| 398 | CRLMP / 6994 / 2023 (GOVIND SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/08/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by the rejection order of his revision petition regarding fabrication of evidence. HELD: Complainant failed to establish prima facie that accused fabricated false evidence against him. Under Section 195 Cr.PC., complaints against public servants for offences related to fabrication of false evidence must be filed by the public authority concerned. Petition dismissed. |
| 399 | CW / 18126 / 2026 (MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA (SARASWAT) VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/08/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of a complaint u/s 154 of Cr.P.C. & the resultant notice to appear before ACB. HELD: Despite negative final report filed in previous FIR, the complainant did not file the protest petition. Filing multiple complaints on same set of facts before the Lokpal & ACB is insignificant and amounts to double jeopardy. Such repetitive complaints are misuse of public resources, specifically when already a favourable investigation has concluded.. Petition allowed. |
| 400 | CW / 12985 / 2024 (M/S SHUBHAM ENTERPRISE VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/08/2024 A request is made on behalf of counsel of petitioner for adjournment. Held: Respondent state submitted, if petition allowed, petitioner would be entitled for work order qua 40% of work & complete supply has been stayed by interim order (13.08.2024). Interim order is modified to the extent that respondent shall be at liberty to issue work order qua 60% of work in question with immediate effect & private respondent state shall be at liberty to execute the same. |
| 401 | CW / 16340 / 2022 (TARUNA SUTHAR VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2024 Petitioner assails the notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act issued for reopening of assessment & challenged the tax Dept. for using an inflated property value set by the stamp duty office to assess her income, instead of actual sale price. HELD: Reopening of assessment & assessment orders passed without jurisdiction & authority of law in defiance to the order passed by the CIT (A) & the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which orders are binding on the assessing officer.Petitions allowed |
| 402 | CRLMP / 5522 / 2024 (VIJAY SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2024 Pet. seeks quashing of FIR as it is a family dispute & must not involve criminal proceedings. HELD:For the offences committed before 01.07.2024 under IPC an FIR can’t be registered under BNS after enforcement of BNS from 01.07.2024.Any trial,appeal,revision or application commenced after 01.07.2024 will be proceeded as per the procedure of BNSS.No dishonest inducement/entrustment of property.No particulars of forgery of Will. Cri.Law can’t be used to settle civil disputes.Pet. allowed |
| 403 | CW / 10542 / 2023 (GRAM PANCHAYAT, KALYAN SINGH KI SIDD, PANCHAYAT SAMITI BAP VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2024 Petitioner approached court calling order whereby state has accorded permission for allotment of 800 bigas land of village Kalayn Singh Ki Sidd to respondent 4 for development of solar power project. Held: 10 Bighas of the land should have been left open for school playground etc. The Distt. Collector directed to elicit report from Tehsildar/Patwari and Gram Panchayat’s response/objections on it which shall be considered by the District Collector in modifying the allotment order. Petition dispos |
| 404 | CRLMP / 4830 / 2024 (BHAJAN LAL VS SANDEEP KUMAR GODARA) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/08/2024 Petitioner impugning order passed by JM, Sangaria, Hanumangarh rejecting application of pet. u/s 311 CrPC for re-cross examining the complainant. Held: Accused’s statement u/s 313 was recorded & he was given opportunity to present evidence in defense but he didn’t present any evidence. Accused had multiple opportunities to present his case, none of which were utilized. No irregularity in either legal principles or factual finding, pointed out by petitioner. Petition dismissed. |
| 405 | CRLMP / 4057 / 2024 (BHOPAL RAM PUROHIT VS GEETA) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/08/2024 Pet. aggrieved of order passed by ASJ No.1, Abu Road dismissing appeal filed against order of JM allowing application for interim maintenance u/s 23 of DV Act filed by resp.-wife and subsequently ordering maintenance to be paid from date of filing of application. Held: Case is of quasi-criminal proceedings. Interim maintenance as & when awarded on an application filed by wife is ordinarily to be granted with effect from date of filing application for maintenance. Petition dismissed |
| 406 | CRLA / 384 / 1991 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS ABDUL JABBAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/08/2024 Appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by Sessions Court. Held: Statement of witness recorded in course of investigation u/s 161 CrPC cannot be basis for conviction. Serious inconsistency among statements of prosecution witnesses & prosecution story as narrated in FIR. No evidence was laid during trial that Hanifa was attacked by Abdul with such force that would break his ribs. Statement u/s 161 CrPC cannot be basis to convict accused. Appeal dismissed. |
| 407 | CRLMP / 328 / 2022 (ASHISH SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/08/2024 Petition seeking quashing of FIR registered u/s 420 & 406 of IPC. Held: Complainant’s failure to present the cheques (issued by petitioner) or initiate proceedings u/s 138 of NI Act means he is alone responsible. Complainant did not seek any legal remedy in time & realizing that it had become time-barred, filed FIR to circumvent the situation. Complainant misused law which renders FIR unsustainable & hence quashed. Petition allowed. |
| 408 | CRLMB / 4298 / 2024 (BALVEER @ BIRA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/08/2024 Applicant charged u/s 8/21 NDPS Act & u/s 420, 465, 468, 471 & 379 IPC filed bail application. Held: Ample material on record to connect the applicant with the allegation of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband heroin. No legitimate reason for presence of pet. at the international border at the time of arrival of consignment from Pakistan. S. 37 clearly operate against him. International drug trafficking is a global menace inflicting harm on nations. Bail application dismissed |
| 409 | CRLMP / 5257 / 2024 (PARVATI DEVI ALIAS BHOORI DEVI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/08/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of order passed by Add. Sessions Judge, Balotra dismissing revision petition challenging order passed by SDM for attachment of property u/s 145 & 146(1) CrPC. Held: Order passed by SDM not interlocutory in nature as order of attachment is final qua application u/s 146. Application stood finally disposed. Merely execution was pending for which report was sought. Order quashed & revision petition is remitted back to be decided on merits, as per law. Petition allowed. |
| 410 | CRLMP / 3598 / 2024 (YUNAS MOHAMMED VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/08/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by order passed by JM Taranagar, Churu dismissing petitioner’s application seeking permission for renewal of his passport, owing to his status as an under-trial for offences u/s 323, 341, 354, 354(D) & 509 IPC. Held: Matter private in nature. State unnecessarily burdened with litigation as complainant no longer interested in pursuing her charges against pet. Petitioner granted permission to get his passport renewed as per law. Impugned order set aside. Petition allowed |
| 411 | CRLMP / 4845 / 2024 (SANGEETA SACHDEV VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/08/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR for the offences u/s 420, 406 and 379 IPC. HELD: FIR is purely matrimonial in nature & registered in complete abuse of the police powers & is motivated to settle personal scores arising out of the differences between husband and wife. Wife entitled to take along personal belongings & her istridhan when leaving matrimonial home. FIR quashed. Petition allowed. |
| 412 | CW / 11237 / 2024 (RAJEEV SIDANA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/08/2024 Petition filed with prayer to grant 30% bonus marks on services rendered by them on the post of Medical Officer (Dental) in state govt. Held: It is policy decision of state govt. to grant or not to grant bonus marks in a particular recruitment & same cannot be interfered with unless it is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary. Grant of bonus marks not prescribed in rules; therefore, no illegality has been committed by state govt. by not providing the bonus marks. Petition dismissed. |
| 413 | CRLMP / 2217 / 2024 (KULDEEP VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/08/2024 Pet. assailed FIR registered u/s 458, 365, 363 & 323 IPC as well as pending proceedings before special court, POCSO Act Cases. Held: Consensual relationship of petitioner with prosecutrix (few months short of marriageable age) resulted in petitioner being in conflict with law. Neither she nor her parents wish to press charges against petitioner. In larger interest of justice & to enable parties to enjoy matrimonial bliss, FIR & all consequential proceedings quashed. Petition allowed |
| 414 | CRLMP / 4999 / 2024 (BHAVESH KUMAR VS SWEETY) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/08/2024 Petitioner impugnes the maintenance order of Rs.7000 under section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by Family Court No.1, Jodhpur. HELD: No procedural irregularity found on the part of Family Court as it is based on sound & valid reasoning. Wife residing separately; thus, it is both moral & legal obligation upon the husband to provide her with maintenance irrespective of all claims & counter-claims of the parties regarding each other being unemployed. Petition dismissed. |
| 415 | CRLMP / 4580 / 2024 (DIJENDRA SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/08/2024 Petitioner seeking quashing of order passed by ASJ No. 5, Jodhpur Metro dismissing revision petition while upholding order passed by Special MM (NI Act Cases) dismissing application filed by petitioner u/s 311 CrPC. Held: Application of dilatory tactics on part of petitioner. Cross-examination of complainant took place in May, 2023 & application filed in February, 2024 being an afterthought. No ground to interfere in findings recorded by both the courts below. Petition dismissed. |
| 416 | CRLMP / 5011 / 2024 (PARSHANT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/08/2024 Petitioner assails Interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court No. 1, Bikaner HELD: No evidence obtained establishing the fact that wife is financially independent; Hence, bears duty on the husband to ensure her financial well-being. Wife cannot be expected to live in sheer penury or be dependent on her parents / or other family members. All rights will be determined at the appropriate final stage. Petition dismissed. |
| 417 | CRLMP / 7410 / 2023 (AJAY KUMAR JATAV VS KANTILAL BHANDARI) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/08/2024 Revisional order passed by District & Sessions Judge Jalore dismissing revision petition & upholding an order passed by ACJM No 1 Jalore rejecting application filed u/s 45 & 47 of Evidence Act is challenged. Held: Petition has been filed belatedly. Bank has dishonored cheque on ground of insufficiency of funds & not due to mismatch of sign. Examination by handwriting expert to compare petitioner’s sign on cheque with his standard admitted sign is not warranted. Petition dismissed |
| 418 | CRLMP / 1088 / 2024 (PRAKASH CHANDRA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/08/2024 Order passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge Sagwara, Dungarpur dismissing revision petition against order passed by ACJM Sagwara rejecting complaint u/s 156(3) CrPC is challenged. Held: Complaint doesn’t provide adequate grounds to substantiate accusations against accused. Prima facie no evidence on record for taking cognizance of offences attributed to resp. In a family settlement of 2016, house in question had been given to private resp. for their residence. Petition dismissed. |
| 419 | CRLMP / 3097 / 2024 (BHAWRI DEVI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/08/2024 Petitioner(65 yr.) seeks quashing FIR u/s 341, 323 and 506 IPC. HELD: Subsequent FIR filed by the complainant lacks authenticity as was filed with a delay of 7 hrs after the incident took place & no medical report obtained from the complainant regarding injury in her right eye by a lathi. Rather, the petitioner was the first to file an FIR. Considering the old age of Petitioner, continuing with the criminal proceedings would lead to humiliation and harassment. Petition allowed. |
| 420 | CRLMP / 4963 / 2024 (ROHIT KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/07/2024 Whether an order passed by the court for DNA profiling of an accused by itself violates the constitutional protection against selfincrimination? HELD: For application filed on 12.07.2024 provisions of BNSS would apply & not CrPC. As per S 193 (9) BNSS, investigation during trial may be conducted with the permission of the court trying the case, though pet. can refuse to give his blood sample. No violation of Constitutional protection against selfincrimination u/A 20 (3). Petition dismissed |
| 421 | CRLMP / 4965 / 2024 (SITARAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/07/2024 Petitioner impugning order passed by trial court allowing application filed by resp. no. 2 u/s 311 CrPC for taking on record certain documents. Held: Powers u/s 311 Crpc can be exercised at any stage, provided it is so warranted, to avoid the miscarriage of justice. No prejudice would be caused to petitioner with the impugned order except a little delay in trial. Balance has to strike between delay & denial to invoke right u/s 311. No ground exists for interference. Petition dismissed. |
| 422 | CRLMP / 2904 / 2024 (JAGANNATH SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/07/2024 Petitioner(retired lecturer) seeks quashing of FIR u/s 193 and 420 IPC. HELD: FIR in question is found to be an act of revenge via grudges. No Locus Standi and ingredients of said sections recognized on part of the complainant as no action of petitioner has harmed him directly or indirectly. Primary responsibility to conduct proceedings under alleged offences was upon the Education Dept. itself which was not initiated while the pet. was in service. FIR quashed. Petition allowed. |
| 423 | CRLMP / 4923 / 2024 (MUNSHI RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/07/2024 Pet. aggrieved by the order passed by ld. ASJ Didwana where the revision petition filed by resp. no.2 was allowed. HELD:ASJ has rendered his opinion with sound reasoning. Since,civil litigation is already pending,the SDM u/s 145 CrPC should not delved into making findings on the possession/title rights of the parties concerning the property.The role of the SDM is to handle imminent breaches of peace,not to settle property disputes which is within the purview of civil courts.Petition dismissed |
| 424 | CRLMP / 2320 / 2024 (AVINASH KUMAR PANDAY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/07/2024 Grievance against order passed by JM, Aspur dismissing application filed u/s 65 of Evidence Act for adducing secondary evidence in pending proceedings u/s 138 NI Act.Held: S.65 & 66 to be read harmoniously & benefit u/s 65 cannot be given in isolation as these sections go hand in hand. Unless party who is in possession of primary evidence is given a prior notice of producing same, secondary evidence cannot be adduced as per S.66 of IEA which is mandatory in nature. Petition dismissed |
| 425 | CRLMB / 8766 / 2024 (NIRMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/07/2024 Petitioner charged u/s 419, 420, 120-B of IPC & u/s 3,4,5,6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022 filed application u/s 439 CrPC for releasing her on bail. Held: Petitioner is not involved in any other case & has available to her substantial grounds so as to question the prosecution case. No useful purpose would be served by keeping petitioner in detention for indefinite period. Bail application allowed. |
| 426 | CRLMP / 4865 / 2024 (MAHENDRA SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/07/2024 Pet. aggrieved by order passed by Sessions Judge Jalore dismissing application filed by pet. u/s 91 CrPC. Held: Where offence is grave & consequences thereof can lead to life Imprisonment &/or capital punishment justice should not only be done, but also seem to have been done. Evidence, given its relevancy sought to be adduced cannot be given short-shrift merely to save the time of court. Quest report will help trial court to unravel truth. Impugned order set aside. Petition allowed |
| 427 | CRLA / 492 / 1989 (JEET SINGH AND ORS. VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/07/2024 Criminal appeal u/s 374 Crpc has been filed with prayer of setting aside conviction u/s 302/34 & 447 of IPC passed by sessions judge? HELD: two different stories with different accused's name were narrated in both DD. If inconsistencies are found in DD, then DD recorded before the magistrate is to be relied upon. Contradictions found in the statements of sole eye witness. There are relaible & cogent evidence on record that conviction deserves to be reversed. Appeal allowed. |
| 428 | CRLMB / 8666 / 2024 (VEER BAHADUR SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/07/2024 Applicant locked in FIR u/s 302, 201 & 120-B of IPC filed application u/s 439 CrPC (sec. 483 of BNSS, 2023) for restoration of liberty. Held: Murder committed to take revenge from complainant. Pet. was root cause of incident. In serious offence, filling of chargesheet does not provide a ground for bail to the petitioner. The nature of gravity of accusation, role attributed to petitioner & case set up against him, not found entitled to be released on bail. Bail application dismissed. |
| 429 | HC / 245 / 2024 (RAJESH BISHNOI VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/07/2024 Habeas Corpus Petition filed for custody of minor child. Held: A pragmatic approach adopted & focused on the welfare & upbringing of the child. Looking into the larger interest of child, which is paramount consideration; both the parents have agreed that they shall continue to share the custody of child between themselves in the manner consensually agreed between them. This agreement will be considered a legally binding directive from this court for the parties. Petition disposed. |
| 430 | CRLMB / 8653 / 2024 (DINESH KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/07/2024 Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with FIR registered u/s 363, 376(2)(I)(N), 450 of IPC & u/s 3/4 of POCSO Act. Held: Victim has specifically alleged offence of rape against the petitioner. If victim refused to undergo medical exam, her statement cannot be negated & it cannot be said that petitioner has been falsely implicated. Allegations levelled against the petitioner are of grave nature. Bail application rejected. |
| 431 | CRLR / 868 / 2006 (TEJA RAM VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/07/2024 Petitioner praying no grant of probation for offences u/s 326 & 447 IPC to resp. no. 2 considering his criminal history. HELD: Grant of probation to resp. no.2 by Appellate Court u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act is reasonably justified as per the statute. Today’s criminal justice system is focused upon balancing punishment with rehabilitation along with identifying the root causes of the criminal behavior of such offenders. Petition dismissed. |
| 432 | CRLMP / 1055 / 2024 (CHANDRASHEKHAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/07/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of order by ASJ, Begu dismissing revision petition & affirming order passed by JM, Rawatbhata whereby cognizance for offences u/s 323 & 341 IPC was taken against pet. Held: Why benefit of S.468 CrPC be not extended to pet. Incident of year 2009 & cognizance order passed in year 2015, benefit of S. 468 Crpc should be extended. Pet. ASI in Raj. Police & a Govt. Servant therefore prior sanction from govt. ought to be obtained before prosecution.Petition allowed. |
| 433 | CRLMP / 4436 / 2024 (HEMANT SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/07/2024 Petition seeking quashing of FIR registered u/s 500,120-B IPC & u/s 66 & 66(C) of IT Act, 2000. Held: Pet. should have first approached a superior officer u/s 36 CrPC who after conducting initial inquiries, has the authority to either terminate the proceedings or direct the earlier Investigating officer to continue investigating the FIR in question. Offences alleged are bailable, in case pet. are summoned, they shall be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds. Petition disposed |
| 434 | CRLMB / 7308 / 2024 (SALENDRA SINGH @ CHHINDA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2024 Applicant charged u/s 366,376-D, 377, 382, 384 of IPC filed bail application. Held: Petitioner is the architect of the incident. In a case of gang rape an attempt of rape by any person requires to be treated with utmost seriousness. Gang rape have profound and devastating impact on a young girl. It degrades and humiliates the victim leaving behind the traumatic experience which can damage her sense of self-worth. Application dismissed. |
| 435 | SAW / 438 / 2024 (ABHISHEK AGRAWAL VS BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (BPCL)) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/07/2024 Petition filed aggrieved by order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition concerning invalidity of the lease deed as registered after the cut-off date as per guidelines. Held: Manual for selection of LPG Distributors, ownership is defined to have ownership title over property or lease deed (with min. 15 years validity) registered on or before last date of submission of application. It is beyond the jurisdiction of writ court to issue direction to BPCL not to adhere to guidelines. Appeal dismissed |
| 436 | CRLMP / 2956 / 2024 (RADHA DEVI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/07/2024 Petitioner seeking quashing of FIR registered u/s 420 & 406 IPC. Held: No legal illegality or irregularity has been identified that warrants intervention by this court. Allegations in FIR involve disputed factual questions that need to be adjudicated & established. FIR doesn’t present grounds sufficient for its quashing. Truth will emerge through investigation, & it is premature for this court to form any opinions on the veracity of FIR at this early stage. Petition dismissed |
| 437 | CRLMP / 4489 / 2024 (PURA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/07/2024 Petitioner seeking quashing of FIR registered u/s 302, 306, 201 & 34 IPC. Held: No infirmity, illegality, irregularity in law has been pointed out in FIR, on its bare reading, doesn’t show that no offence is made out against petitioner. Nature of allegations are serious, no interference by court is warranted. Truth will be revealed during investigation & trial & not appropriate at this early stage to express any opinion on veracity of FIR. Petition dismissed. |
| 438 | CRLMB / 4416 / 2024 (GIRRAJ BANSAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/07/2024 Anticipatory bail application on behalf of the petitioners (charged u/s 420 & 406 of IPC). Held: It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. Anticipatory bail if granted will be practically scuttling the investigation and would create hurdle in arriving at the truth. Prima-facie the petitioner herein are involved in a serious crime of huge amount. Application dismissed. |
| 439 | CRLMP / 4356 / 2024 (VIDYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/07/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by order passed by Sessions Court Rajsamand u/s 399 CrPC reversing decision of ACJM, Railmagra framing charges against resp. no. 3 u/s 494 IPC as she was not impleaded as necessary party. Held: Sessions court erred in law by not impleading pet. as party in revisional proceedings instituted by resp. 2 & 3 impugning framing of charges u/s 493 IPC. Order is set aside & matter remanded back to Sessions Court for fresh decision after hearing pet. Petition allowed. |
| 440 | CW / 17047 / 2022 (JUBAIR BHATI VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/07/2024 Petition filed seeking direction to quash impugned result qua petitioner & to recommend petitioner’s name for appointment to post of RJS-Civil Judge 2021. Held: Property dispute between two parties which resulted into FIR & no case made out against pet. after investigation. None of disqualifications are hitting petitioner. Prolonged adjudication shall not act to detriment of the cause of justice. One of the five unfilled posts to be offered to petitioner. Petition allowed. |
| 441 | CRLMP / 4355 / 2024 (RAMNIVAS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/07/2024 Petitioner seeking quashing of FIR registered u/s 341, 323, 363, 342, 328, 365, 376, 376-D, 382, 506 & 34 IPC. Held: No legal irregularity or illegality has been pointed out to justify interference from this court. No grounds fatal to FIR have been made out to warrant its quashing. The allegations in FIR involve disputed questions of fact that need to be investigated & established. It is premature to make definitive conclusions regarding veracity of allegations. Petition dismissed. |
| 442 | CRLMP / 4223 / 2024 (RAJU VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/07/2024 Pet. seeking quashing of notice u/s 97-98 CrPC issued by SDO & pending proceedings arising therefrom. Held: Initiation of proceedings u/s 97 & 98 is a legally valid process to ascertain wrongful confinement. Claim that husband cannot detain his wife & children may not always hold true, when there is evidence of coercion, threat or abuse. Petition could be an attempt to escape accountability for their role in breakdown of relationship & alleged mistreatment. Petition disposed |
| 443 | CRLMP / 2537 / 2024 (SEEMA CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/07/2024 Petitioner challenged order passed by ACJM, Bhilwara dismissing application filed by pet. u/s 311 CrPC to summon lady constable who was on duty at time of incident. Revision court order dismissing revision is also assailed. Held:Trial at final arguments stage. No doubt summoning would result in delay but witness is material witness & is also stated to be eye witness. She also recorded very first statement of complainant after incident. In larger interest of justice petition is allowed |
| 444 | CRLMB / 8439 / 2024 (RAKESH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/07/2024 The interim bail application filed on behalf of petitioner (charged u/s 8/15 of NDPS Act) for releasing him on interim bail for a period of 40 days for his sister’s marriage. Held: Granting interim bail may pose a threat to public safety, it also raises concerns about the applicant’s potential to flee from justice. The petitioner’s sister has other brothers also who can perform marriage rituals and no case for grant of bail to applicant is made out. Bail application rejected. |
| 445 | CRLMP / 2573 / 2024 (GARIYA BA SHYAM ENTERPRISES VS MAHAVEER TRADING COMPANY) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/07/2024 Petition aggrieved by order passed by ACJM- application u/s 143A NI Act filed by resp. was allowed & pet. directed to pay 20% of amount as compensation. Held: Trial court has power to pass such orders but not without complying with the ratio laid down by SC in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. State of Jharkhand i.e. evaluate merits of case, financial distress on accused, a complainant makes prima facie case, then applying mind on quantum, interim compensation to be granted. Petition allowed |
| 446 | CRLMP / 3618 / 2024 (GHANSHYAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/07/2024 Petitioner’s grievance is that rather than granting clean acquittal, trial court acquitted him giving benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence. Held: Benefit of doubt only apply where some prosecution evidence is there which is deemed unreliable to conclusively prove guilt. In case of total lack of prosecution evidence, its clean acquittal. Misclassification of acquittal can have legal & reputational repercussions on pet. Judgment modified to reflect clean acquittal. Petition disposed |
| 447 | CRLMP / 1116 / 2024 (BALWAN SIHAG VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/07/2024 Petitioner challenging order passed by ACJM, Bhadra taking cognizance against petition for offences u/s 323, 342/34 IPC. Held: Magistrate did not accept negative report reasoning that accused being a politically influential person, had likely influenced investigation. It is devoid of evidence and is based merely on presumption, making it unsustainable. Impugned order is sans recording of statements u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. FIR deserves to be quashed. Petition allowed. |
| 448 | CRLMP / 7083 / 2023 (SATYAPRAKASH SANKHALA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/07/2024 Petitioner assailing order of Sessions Court, Sojat, Pali dismissing his revision & upholding order passed by trial court dismissing application filed u/s 91 CrPC. Held: Stage of framing charges isn’t intended to be a mini-trial but to examine whether there is prima facie case against accused. Allowing accused to invoke S. 91 at this point would result in detailed examination of evidence which is premature & lead to unnecessary delay. Petition dismissed. |
| 449 | CRLMP / 4077 / 2024 (MAAN SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/07/2024 Petitioner seeking quashing of FIR registered u/s 409 of IPC. Held: Investigation still underway & truth will unfold in course thereof. No illegality or any irregularity in law has been pointed out as to warrant interference of this court. For exercise of powers u/s 482, contents of FIR should be such that on bare reading, no offence is made out qua the accused. No such ingredient is made out from FIR. Petition dismissed. |
| 450 | CRLMB / 5730 / 2024 (NARAYAN LAL @ NARAYAN NATH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/07/2024 The petitioner charged u/s 457, 341, 323, 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376-D of IPC and u/s 5(G)(L)/6 of POCSO act has filed this application u/s 439 of CrPC. Held: Petitioner not named in FIR and in a subsequent statement, prosecutix brought forward different story. Petitioner availed himself substantial ground so as to question the case of prosecution. The petitioner is in custody since 02.11.2023 and no purpose would to be served by keeping him in detention. Bail application allowed. |
| 451 | SAW / 59 / 2024 (JOGA RAM VS THE BOARD OF REVENUE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/07/2024 Whether the appellant was entitled to be recorded as Khatedar (tenant) after coming into force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 and resumption of Jagir? Held: The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali is directed to hold an enquiry, whether appellant cultivating disputed land as a tenant or as a person hired as labourer or employed by shebait/ pujari which would decide that he would be entitled as Khatedar or not. Appeal allowed. |
| 452 | CRLMP / 3923 / 2024 (HANSRAJ VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/07/2024 Aggrieved by revision court order passed by ASJ, Sujangarh upholding order passed by JM rejecting application preferred by pet. seeking hand writing expert’s opinion u/s 45 of IEA r/w S. 293 CrPC. Held: Petitioner claims that signatures are not his & have been forged. The burden of proof lies with him to substantiate these claims. Trial court directed to grant him effective opportunity, at his own expense, to have cheque examined by a handwriting expert. Petition disposed accordingly. |
| 453 | CRLMB / 7007 / 2024 (HARPREET SINGH @ HARRY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/07/2024 The petitioner charged u/s 8/21, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act filed an anticipatory bail application. Held: Petitioner, a habitual offender under NDPS Act, drug consignment was intended to be delivered to him and had arrived in India on his instructions, and he was part of international drug smuggling racket, his role satisfies the ingredients of offence under NDPS act as revealed in the investigation, and also there is chance of him escaping and tampering with evidence. Application dismissed. |
| 454 | CRLMP / 3781 / 2024 (BHERU SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/07/2024 Whether Sessions Judge was justified in upholding the order of Trial Magistrate to reject protest petition filed by petitioner and accept FR. No 37/2011 in FIR No116/2011. Held: the petitioner’s daughter in her statement u/s 164 of CrPC stated that she has gone on her own volition. The agency investigated to find same & filed negative FR. Confirmed statement was given by complainant & later he sought another opportunity which was denied in absence of evidence. Petition dismissed. |
| 455 | CRLMP / 3691 / 2024 (ISHAK MOHAMMAD VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/07/2024 Whether the Additional Sessions Judge, Begu, Chittorgarh was justified in dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner? Held: no affidavit filed in support of the application u/s 91 CrPC or demonstrated as to how the documents sought for are necessary and relevant for the judicial disposal of the case under sec. 138 of the NI Act. Money lending licence is irrelevant in cheque dishonour case. Petition dismissed. |
| 456 | CRLMP / 3707 / 2024 (KRIPAL SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/07/2024 Whether Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to dismiss a case referred to it in default of appearance of party? Held: No such power, as per sec. 20(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987- only recourse available to Lok Adalat is to return record to the appropriate court for further proceedings as per law. In present case, no settlement could be reached within the meaning of sec. 20(5) because the parties did not participate in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat. |
| 457 | CW / 16961 / 2023 (JASPREET KAUR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/05/2024 Petitioner seeking directions to the respondents for her appointment at the post of Upper Primary School Teacher considering her eligibility. HELD: The grounds of ineligibility of the petitioner held valid as she had English as her compulsory subject instead of Hindi and also, she does not qualify under the sports category as winning a medal in games conducted by School Games Federation of India is mandatory to secure the benefit of outstanding sportsperson category. Petition dismissed. |
| 458 | CW / 17500 / 2023 (SWETA BISHNOI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/05/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by the order of Respondent No.4, seeks provisional appointment for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) (English) subject to pending Special Leave Petition. HELD: Multiple times the question has arose under several litigations. As per the SLPs are still pending before the apex court, in the interregnum, this court not inclined to issue any interim directions for provisional appointments. Writ Petition disposed |
| 459 | CW / 7697 / 2014 (SULENDER KUMAR VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/05/2024 Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for the post of Senior Teacher Gr.II (Science) in blind/low vision (LV) category. Held: An unsuccessful candidate cannot challenges the rules of the game after having participated in the same. No reservation meant for LV category as per the advertisement for the Teacher Grade-II (Science). All candidates belonging to the LV have been across broad treated similarly as the petitioner herein. Petition dismissed. |
| 460 | CW / 14777 / 2023 (NILOFAR BANU VS RAJASTHAN STAFF SELECTION BOARD) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2024 Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to consider her candidature in EWS women widow category for the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-I. HELD: Inadvertence of the petitioner cannot be a ground to consider her eligibility for the said post even after giving ample of opportunities to rectify her online form. The category cannot be changed from OBC to EWS after the declaration of result. Writ Petition dismissed. |
| 461 | WRES / 154 / 2024 (KAILASH VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/05/2024 Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to consider and declare their candidacies as successful for the post of Basic Computer Instructor. HELD: Due to COVID-19 pandemic pet. could not appear in their final B.Tech exams. And they did not have the qualifying degree by the cut-off date prescribed for applying for the post of Computer Operator. Moreover, all advertised posts have now been filled by candidates who had the requisite degree by the cut-off date. Petition dismissed |
| 462 | CW / 5738 / 2024 (RAM PRATAP BISHNOI VS RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/05/2024 Petition filed by petitioners having common grievance that in respect of some questions in exam, the answers opted by the expert examiners qua the same were wrong as per the answer key uploaded on website. Held: Same answer key applied to all candidates. Expert committee took corrective measures (deletion of some questions) on objections raised. Only after having remained unsuccessful petitioners belatedly challenged the answer key. No interference is warranted. Petition dismissed. |
| 463 | CW / 11278 / 2019 (BHANWAR LAL VS SARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY OF POLICE) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/05/2024 Petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to reinstate his services on the post of Driver and to decide his representation dated 13.03.2019. HELD: The petitioner’s services were hired on contractual basis through placement contractor/agency. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the petitioner did not enjoy the benefit of being governed by any statutory rules akin to regular employees of the university and his services were liable to be dispensed with summarily. Petition Disposed |
| 464 | CW / 1662 / 2006 (STATE AND ORS. VS RAJU LAL HARIJAN AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/05/2024 Petition is filed aggrieved by award of Labour Court directing reinstatement of workman without back wages. Held: No compliance of s. 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947when services of respondent was terminated. Respondent has worked at Govt. Hosp. wef 19.06.1991 to 05.07.1992 attracting the applicability of s. 25B. The respondent worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year & was entitled to get protection u/s 25F. Retrenchment of the services is not justified. Petition dismissed. |
| 465 | CW / 11178 / 2016 (MAQSOOD KHAN KHOKHAR VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/05/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by an order by which respondent has rejected the experience certificate of petitioner on the ground that the same is not as per requirement pursuant to advertisement. Held: A contempt petition filed by petitioner was dismissed vide an order (06.07.2016) & held that petitioner was not holding the requisite experience. The order has not been challenged by petitioner & thus it has attained finality. Hence no ground to interfere. Petition dismissed. |
| 466 | CW / 2763 / 2023 (CHANDRA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/05/2024 Petition filed in respect of grievance of petitioners of non-grant of appointment on the post of ANM pursuant to advertisement. Held: Law helps the vigilant & not those who sleep over their right. So called allegations of indulging in favouritism & nepotism relate to year 2019. Pet. belatedly filed the writ petition in 2023. No justification for the delay caused. Similarly situated candidates who have filed writ petitions much prior were given benefit of appointment. Petition dismissed. |
| 467 | CW / 6476 / 2018 (GEETA SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2024 Petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to consider her candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III, Level II in the subject of Social Studies in the category of divorcee. HELD: The Respondents have followed the due process of law while recruiting the divorcee candidate who applied before the last date of submission whereas the petitioner getting a decree of divorce after the last day of submission is not applicable for eligibility. Petition dismissed |
| 468 | CW / 8961 / 2010 (DR. VISHAL KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/05/2024 Petitioners seeking quashing of entire selection process held for post of Associate Professor & seek to hold a fresh selection process. Held: No irregularity either in facts or in law. Petition filed in 2020, since then selected candidate have been working uninterruptedly in service, equity at this stage is heavily loaded in their favour. The Rules of the game cannot be impugned once the match has begun & after participation in the same, on being unsuccessful. Petition dismissed. |
| 469 | CW / 3479 / 2024 (RAJESH VS ABBAS ALI) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/05/2024 Petitioner assailing order of Ld.ADJ No.1,Bhilwara allowing application filed by respondent under OIR10CPC seeking her impleadment as party defendant in suit.Held; applicant is required to notify all other parties against whom applicant wishes to proceed and after examining matter,court has discretion to direct impleadment of such party and such decision has to be taken on touchstone of O1R10 which provides that a necessary party may be added.Trial court committed no error.Petition dismissed. |
| 470 | SAW / 414 / 2024 (UNION OF INDIA VS SANYOGITA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/05/2024 Appellant assailing order of Ld. Single Judge declaring decision of appellants disqualifying respondent on ground of there being by a scar of removed tattoo.Held;mere existence of tattoo by itself is not disqualification on ground of medical fitness but size and place of body where it is inscribed is relevant for deciding whether it is a case of medical unfitness or not.Disqualifying candidate on such ground is violative of Art.14and16 of Constitution of India.Appeal dismissed |
| 471 | CW / 2327 / 2024 (RAVI PRAKASH PUROHIT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/05/2024 Petitioner challenging cut-off date,which respondent–Raj.Staff Selection Board,Jaipur has fixed for age limit of candidate.Held;stand of respondent is contrary to Para8 of advertisement and Notification issued by State Govt.,which notification has been inserted in form of XVth proviso to Rule10of Rules,1977.Basic advertisement remains unaltered,hence cutoff date for determining age limit cannot be deterimental to candidates eligible per force the term of original advertisement.Petition allowed |
| 472 | CRLA / 388 / 1995 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DEVILAL @ DEVIDA AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/04/2024 Appellant assailing acquittal order passed by Ld. Sessions Judge, Merta.Held;Appellate court may only reverse a trial courts acquittal if judgment is patently perverse, based on misreading or omitting material evidence and no reasonable views other than the guilt of accused are possible.Scope of interference in acquittal order passed by Trial Court is very limited. Impugned judgment deserves no interference.Petition dismissed |
| 473 | CW / 6650 / 2024 (POOJA CHAUHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/04/2024 Petitioner,currently serving in Jodhpur, inter alia, seeks appropriate directions to respondent authorities to pass an appropriate order to transfer her at nearby place of posting i.e.Sri Ganganagar.Held;case of petitioner is of extreme hardship,petitioner is practically a single parent given that her husband is suffering from Lung Cancer(Stage IV) and on contrary he also requires constant attendant in addition to additional parental duties of petitioner.Hence.relief granted.Petition allowed |
| 474 | CRLA / 106 / 1993 (BHANWAR SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/04/2024 Appellant assailed the judgment passed by ld. Add. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, Churu, convicting the appellant for offence u/s 376 IPC. HELD: It appears that there is overwriting in the name of accused therefore, the identification of the accused is quite doubtful. The evidence of the doctor revealed absence of any injury on the private parts of the victim, Owing to the procedural lapses and the contradictions in the evidence, a benefit of doubt to be extended to the appellant. Appeal Allowed. |
| 475 | CW / 11499 / 2022 (PARTAP RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/04/2024 Petitioner in the form of PIL, challenged the orders of respondents refusing to transfer the amount of compensation to the trust in lieu of acquisition of land of non-government temple. Held:- Under Rajasthan Public Trust Act 1959, commissioner Devsthan Department empowered to exercise its control over the temple and to receive compensation in lieu of acquisition of the temple land, ensuring the temple rights. petition dismissed. |
| 476 | CW / 5970 / 2024 (PARMESHWAR SINGH VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/04/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of the seniority list issued by the respondent for promotion on the post of UDC/Senior Assistant where seniority was determined as per the joining date instead of merit. HELD: It appears that petitioner had submitted their objections to the proposed seniority list but without according any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, final seniority list has been prepared. Petition is disposed of with the expectation that the administrative order shall be passed expeditiously. |
| 477 | CW / 5939 / 2024 (RAJKUMAR VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/04/2024 Petitioners assailing the orders pursuant to which they were terminated from the posts of DDC Helper and Health Advisor on the grounds of expiry of their contractual period. HELD: Orders appear to have been passed without due application of mind, and against the larger interest of public health and running and management of the hospital. Accordingly, the same are set aside. The pet. shall be allowed to rejoin the posts in question with immediate effect. Petitions allowed. |
| 478 | 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 |
| 479 | CW / 13473 / 2022 (FARUK RATHORE PROP. OF M/S HINDUSTAN TRADING COMPANY VS DY. COMMISSIONER) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/04/2024 Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside order passed u/s 129(3) of CGST Act, 2017 and the order of the Appellate Authority HELD: Imposition of such a heavy penalty for a minor offence is unacceptable and the penalty imposed should have been as per Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs.10,000/-, as there is no apparent case of tax evasion. Impugned notice and the impugned orders dated 01.03.2021 and 24.05.2021 deserve to be quashed and set aside. Petition partly allowed. |
| 480 | CMS / 6034 / 2024 (MANJU VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/04/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of order passed by Village Panchayat seeks direction to appoint her for post of Anganwadi Sahayika Distt. Jodhpur. HELD: On the basis of merit & fulfilling requisite condition of being a Bonafide resident of revenue village, Pet. is eligible as she is S. No. 2 instead of Resp. 7 after her resignation. Fresh applications invited without proper scrutinizing Petitioner’s docs by Resp.-State authorities. Hence, directed to appoint Pet. within 30 days. Petition allowed. |
| 481 | CRLA / 1670 / 2017 (VINOD KUMAR VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/04/2024 Appellant assailing judgment of Ld.Addl.Sessions Judge,Anoopgarh camp Gharsana,Sriganganagar convicting appellant for offence U/S302 and 449IPC.Held;prosecution has failed to satisfactorily prove requisite ingredients that are required in case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence and that appellant alone murdered the deceased.Evidence are neither able to withstand force of appellants arguments nor are they capable to clear judicial scanning with lens of legal principles.Appeal allowed |
| 482 | CW / 4962 / 2017 (RAM CHANDRA KADELA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/04/2024 Grievance of petitioner stems out of corrigendum issued by respondent,revoking reservation for Blind/Low Vision candidates for post of Lecturer Music(Vocal).Held;visual impairment of petitioner in no manner impedes with duties to be performed by him as Lecturer Music(Vocal).Respondents are under statutory mandate to accord 3 percent reservation for disabled persons as per Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.Petition allowed |
| 483 | CW / 11183 / 2022 (RAJENDRA @ RAJURAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/04/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of order terminating his service on voluntary position of Shiksha Karmi(teacher) on ground of his being implicated in an FIR.Held; after registration of FIR on conclusion of the trial,petitioner was acquitted and to that extent,he stood vindicated that his services ought not to have been dispensed with. Impugned termination order is not sustainable,but,respondents are not under obligation to re-induct the petitioner as a volunteer,if no requirement.Petition allowed |
| 484 | CW / 2216 / 2019 (SUNITA DOCHANIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/04/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of inaction of respondents in not providing fixed remuneration to her,in accordance withRaj.Civil Service (Revised Payscale)Rules,2017,on post of School Lecturer(English) and consequential benefits thereof.Held;there is no bar envisaged either in Act/Rules framed thereunder that an employee having once chosen a beneficial payscale if the same turns out to be detrimental subsequently cannot change his option/decision.Claim of petitioner is justified.Petition allowed |
| 485 | CW / 5064 / 2024 (RUGHA RAM VS BHANWARA RAM ALIAS BHANWAR LAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/04/2024 Petitioner assailing order of Ld.ADJNo.7,Jod.Metro.,Jodh.rejecting applicationU/O32R15CPC for appointment of next friend of plaintiff-perfo.respdt.due to her old age and med. grounds.Held;Ld. Trial Court instead of holding an enquiry as to whether original plaintiff was in fact a person of unsound mind and is not in position to protect her interest,rather assumed that application U/O32R15CPC has been filed in order to cause delay in adjudication of suit.Remanding matter back.Petition allowed |
| 486 | CW / 5328 / 2024 (POONAM MATORIYA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/04/2024 Petitioner challenged the answers of certain questions of the written examination, being unsuccessful in the result declared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. HELD: Challenge to the opinion of the examiners merely on the ground that a particular candidate has not been successful is not sustainable. The answers as per the answer key have been across board applied qua the candidates who participated in the selection process. Petition dismissed. |
| 487 | CW / 10897 / 2010 (DR. BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/04/2024 Petitioner assailing punishment order of disciplinary authority and order of Reviewing Authority enhancing punishment to removing him from service.Held;in present case,disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of stoppage of four annual grade increments.Rule34 of CCA Rules,1958 does not permit Reviewing Authority to exercise his power after lapse of more than 3 years to suo motu review any order passed by disciplinary authority.Impugned orders are quashed.Petition allowed |
| 488 | CW / 15320 / 2023 (DHARMENDER KUMAR VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/04/2024 Petitioner seeks directions against the respondent to consider him for appointment to the post in question as per his merit position, along with all consequential benefits HELD: Similarly situated candidates have been given the benefit of provisional participation subject to the outcome of the SLP pending adjudication before the SC. Resp. are directed to process the case of the pet. within 30 days from the date pet. approaching them with a web print of the instant order. Petition allowed. |
| 489 | 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 |
| 490 | CW / 4494 / 2024 (KISHAN LAL SUTHAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/03/2024 Petitioner assailing order by which he is transferred from Patwar Mandal Thamla Tehsil Ghasa to Patwar Mandal Boyna Tehsil Mavli against vacant position.Held;case of petitioner is squarely covered in judgment of Dal Chand Jat Vs. State of Raj.;S.B.C.W.PNo.3112/2024.It is totally in consonance with Rule 9 of Raj.Land Revenue(Land Records)Rules,1957 whereby a Collector is authorised to transfer a Patwari to fill up a vacancy.No ground for interference.Petition dismissed. |
| 491 | MREF / 1 / 2021 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN-STATE VS NOKHARAM @ BHARMARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/03/2024 Appellant aggrieved of the order of death penalty passed by special judge, POCSO court Sirohi. HELD: Impugned judgment of conviction does not suffer from any irregularity. Appellant is of 24 years of age with no criminal antecedents and case does not fall within the domain of rarest of rare case, although the nature of crime is extremely heinous. Death sentence awarded to the appellant is commuted to 30 years imprisonment. Appeal partly allowed |
| 492 | CW / 15751 / 2023 (GAYAD RAM VS RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/03/2024 Petitioner assailing order rejecting candidature of petitioner for post of Senior Teacher(Social Science) in Ex-serviceman category.Held;candidature of petitioner was rejected way back in year 2021 and no plausible explanation forthcoming on part of petitioner as to why he has approached this Court so belatedly.Unreasonable delay naturally results in crystallization of rights in the other party,thus severely prejudices them by belated interference of Court.Petition dismissed |
| 493 | CW / 4842 / 2007 (SOJI RAM MEENA VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/03/2024 Petition inter alia seeking direction to respondents to give joining petitioner on post of Junior Instructor (Vidhyutkar).Held;In absence of relevant selection record,claim of petitioner that he is more meritorious than last selected candidate in category in which he had applied,cannot be entertained.Last selected candidate in the relevant category has been working on the post in question for all these years and at this stage, equity is heavily loaded in his favour.Petition dismissed |
| 494 | CW / 10071 / 2009 (KALU PRAKASH SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/03/2024 Petitioner assailed the order that withdrew his senior scale benefit and initiated recovery after 9 years of his superannuation. HELD: The case of the pet. is covered by ratio in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih. It is not controverted either in the reply or otherwise that the benefit stated to have been erroneously conferred to the pet. lasted for as long as 9 years. The period is clearly more than 5 years, as mentioned in para-18 sub-clause(iii) of the judgment. Order is set aside |
| 495 | CW / 17522 / 2023 (ASU RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/03/2024 Petitioner despite being successful in selection process for post of Upper Primary School Teacher,respondents are not issuing appointment letter to him due to registration of FIR,hence,petition.Held;FIR in question is in fact a cross case based on allegation and counter allegations,arising out of mere family dispute.Subsequently,petitioner was aquitted and respondents accorded benefit of acquittal,hence,respondents directed to issue appointment letter to petitioner within 30days.Petition allowed |
| 496 | CW / 4985 / 2023 (KAVITA BISHNOI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2024 Petitioner assailing the order dated 30.01.2023 where the punishment order was partly allowed by the Appellate Authority. HELD: Petition seems to have been filed merely on an apprehension that the impugned order, which the petitioner was censured may come in the way of her future progression. Censure is merely a warning. No grounds to interfere as the petitioner has suffered no prejudice or adverse consequences in view of her being rewarded with subsequent promotion. Petition dismissed. |
| 497 | CW / 2222 / 2024 (M/S TRIVENI BROKERS VS M/S HIRA RAM HANSA RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2024 Petitioner assailing the orders passed by Commercial Court under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act & under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. HELD: Resp./Plaintiff took sufficient steps prior to filing application u/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, order justifiable. The plaint cannot be read in isolation as the averments made in the plaint have to be read in entirety as the disclosure of cause of action is nothing but a bundle of facts. Petitions dismissed. |
| 498 | CW / 3719 / 2024 (PRIYANKA MATHUR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2024 Petitioner,a married daughter of deceased government employee,assailing orders rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment on ground that only son of deceased employee is entitled for the same.Held;married daughter cannot be denied claim on ground of her marriage as long as she is otherwise entitled to seek such benefit.No Objection has also been given in favour of petitioner by her brother,hence,benefit should be granted to petitioner.Petition allowed |
| 499 | CW / 16142 / 2023 (GAJENDRA SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/03/2024 Pet. seeks issuance of appropriate writ order commanding the resp. to give age relaxation to him for applying on the post of Physical Training Instructor. HELD:Pet. belongs to General Category and is not entitled to any age relaxation as per the RPSC. Merely on the ground that recruitment is being made after a long interregnum pet. cannot as a matter of right seek age relaxation. State cannot be forced to carry out recruitment exercise just because the posts were lying vacant. Petition dismissed |
| 500 | CW / 14648 / 2023 (MAHENDRA DAN VS RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/03/2024 Petitioner assailing action of respondent-RPSC rejecting his candidature on post of SI and debarring him to appear in any future selection process on ground of registration of FIR against him.Held;petitioner has not even been named as accused in charge-sheet,to debar him forever to appear in any future selection process would be too harsh punishment.Petitioner shall be allowed to participate in future examinations depending on outcome of criminal trial.Petition allowed |
| 501 | CW / 3809 / 2006 (STATE AND ANR. VS SMT.MANJU BERWA AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/03/2024 Petitioners assailing an award dated 08.08.2005 rendered by ld Labour Court, Bhilwara. HELD: Neither the impugned award dated 08.08.2005 suffers from any material irregularity in law nor any misappreciation of the evidence. On one hand same officer recommended taking Resp. No. 1 back in service, on the other hand termination order was passed few days thereafter. The pet. are directed to take the Resp. No.1 back in service on parity with her counterparts. Petition disposed. |
| 502 | CMAP / 82 / 2016 (ASHA RAM VS PUSHKARNA BRAHMIN BHIMJI KA MOHALA AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2024 Present application filed for recalling of judgment passed in execution of 2nd appeal.Held;order was obtained by plaintiff by playing fraud upon the Court,hence,order can be recall by exercising powers U/S151CPC.Doctrine of merger would not apply to present matter as no leave to appeal was granted by the Honble Apex Court against order.Principle of finality of litigation would also not apply as regular 1st appeal preferred by defendant was withdrawn and not decided on merits.Application allowed |
| 503 | CW / 16375 / 2021 (DUNGAR SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/03/2024 The petitioner challenged the jaisalmer collector’s order rejecting his land exchange application. Held :- The nature of land which is allotted to the petitioner is not feasible for agricultural purposes and is in violation of section 101 of Raj. Land Revenue Act, 1956. Under sub rule 2 of rule 24 AA Raj. Tenancy Rules, any officer authorized by the state govt. can give any other land in exchange for the land let out to a person. Petition allowed. |
| 504 | CW / 19159 / 2023 (BHANWAR LAL BHADU VS VED PRAKASH) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/03/2024 Petitioner assailing the order of ld. Election tribunal of declaring the election as null and void. HELD: the learned Election Tribunal, without adhering to the procedure enshrined in S. 73 of IEA, has simply compared the signatures of those persons named in Voters Original Register in Ex.7 and Ex.8 and formed its opinion. The persons who made those signatures were neither confronted nor their admitted signatures were compared with the signatures which are in dispute. Petition allowed |
| 505 | CW / 15630 / 2021 (KAMAL KUMAR VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/03/2024 Petitioners aggrieved of the result passed by Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur in Stenographer Grade-III exam, increasing the margin of error from 5% to 15%. HELD: In the public employment, it is necessary to select the meritorious candidates and also apply proper formula and select the candidates with higher marks. Due to technical error in the evaluation software, the action taken by the resp. is justified. The entire selection process is faultless. Petition dismissed. |
| 506 | CRLMP / 3672 / 2023 (CHOTHA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/03/2024 Petitioners challenging order of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Pratapgarh,rejecting application filed by petitioners U/S 91 and 311Cr.P.C. and S.165 Evidence Act.Held;allowing an application U/S 91Cr.P.C. for protection of electronic records from deletion and summoning the same to keep on record would not mean taking evidence of defence at nascent stage;rather,it is being done only for purpose of saving and protecting evidence from being destroyed.Allowing application,allowed petition |
| 507 | CW / 13649 / 2023 (SEEMA KUMARI DENDOR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/03/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the respondents in not accepting his candidature on the ground of not having the divorce decree on the date of doc. verification. HELD: On the cutoff date the pet. was not only married, but had not even initiated any Court process to seek divorce decree. If her eligibility acquired after the cutoff date is accepted, the same would amount to shifting the cutoff date for individual gain of the pet. as against others. Petition dismissed |
| 508 | SAW / 103 / 2023 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS GAYATRI VIDHYAPEETH, (NIMT COLLEGE OF NURSING)) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/03/2024 Issue is whether St.Govt.can impose condition of having 100bedded own hospital to get NOC for establishment of Nursing Colleges/enhancement of seats in such Colleges.Held;policy imposing condition is a clear contravention of Regulations of 2020 enacted by Cent. Legislature. The state cannot adversaly affect standards laid down by UOI under entry66 of List I.Ld. Single Judge has considered all relevant aspects of case and precedent laws governing the field.Appeal dismissed. |
| 509 | CRLMB / 10994 / 2023 (SHISHPAL @ SANJAY KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/03/2024 Petitioner has approached this Court U/S439Cr.P.C. seeking bail arrested in respect of offence punishable U/S8/15 of NDPS Act,1985.Held;petitioner was neither found on spot nor in possession of contraband at the time of recovery and he has been arrested after 3days of recovery on basis of information of co-accused,he has been arraigned as an accused.Restriction U/S37 of NDPS Act does not operate to prejudice of petitioner,granting bail.Application allowed. |
| 510 | CRLMB / 258 / 2024 (RAMA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/03/2024 Instant interim bail application filed on behalf of petitioner for releasing him on interim bail for a period of 1month on ground of ailment of his father.Petitioner is being tried for offense punishable U/S8/15&and8/29 of NDPS Act.Held;being son of patient and to enable petitioner to provide proper medical care and support to his severely ill father,petitioner be released on interim bail for 21days,on submitting DD of 2.5Lac.On surrender petitioner will submit docs.of treatment. |
| 511 | CR / 118 / 2023 (HARI SINGH VS AJAY SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/02/2024 Petitioner assailing the order of ld. ADJ 6, Jodhpur dismissing applications under O 2 R 2 r/w O 7 R 11 of CPC. HELD: The previous suit was for an injunction while the latter suit is for getting possession of suit property and permanent injunction, so S.10 CPC not applicable. O 7 Rule 11 CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected in the contingencies specified therein. None of those contingencies is shown to exist in the present case. Hence, O 7 R11 not applicable. Petitions dismissed |
| 512 | CRLR / 1394 / 2023 (DHARAMPAL SAHARAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/02/2024 Revision petition against order of Ld.Add.Sess.Judge,Taranagar,Churu,dismissing application of petitioner U/S193Cr.P.C for taking cognizance against respdts.No.2and3.Held;Police submitted FR against Respd.2&3on basis of confessional statement of main accused.Trial court relied on findings of police and did not consider statements of eye-witnesses,who specifically named respdts.No.2and3.Quashing order,remanding matter back.Petition allowed. |
| 513 | CW / 463 / 2002 (MAGH RAJ SHARMA VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/02/2024 Petitioner assailing the order which was issued by an official not competent in law and further aggrieved of imposing stoppage of 2 annual increments. Held: The said order could have only been passed by the District Establishment Committee. The order of stoppage of 2 annual increments is not sustainable and the said order even if assumed to have been passed by Vikas Adhikari lacks the legal competency. Petition allowed. |
| 514 | CW / 182 / 2000 (SMT.RAJ KANWAR VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/02/2024 Petitioner assailing order of Comm.(Colon.),Bikaner and Board of Revenue,Ajmer,dismissing revision petition.Held;R7of ASGLIGCCA Rule,1975 was deleted on15.7.93 and on date on which allotment of lands favouring petitioners(inAug.andDec.1993),there was no embargo to take note of Rule7.Law does not provide clubbing of lands of husband and wife while considering holding of land under category of landless person.Comm.(Colo.)had committed an error while considering the both.Petition allowed |
| 515 | CW / 13470 / 2023 (VIRENDER SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/02/2024 Whether the representation of the petitioner is liable to be rejected by respondent? HELD: Court directed the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner and award him bonus marks as per his entitlement. Resultantly, subject to his being otherwise found meritorious, he be accorded the benefit of the vacant post, which was directed to be not filled up vide an interim order dated 16.01.2024 passed by this Court. Petition allowed. |
| 516 | CW / 13431 / 2023 (DIWAKAR GEHLOT VS RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/02/2024 Whether the petitioner can gain an advantage over the selected general candidates because he did not possess the mark-sheet of his LLM degree with 55% marks by last date? HELD: Petitioner failed to give required credentials by the cut-off date. Petitioner appeared as OBC candidate and failing in said category seeked to switch the category which cannot be permitted. Petition dismissed |
| 517 | CW / 12462 / 2023 (DR. ASHOK VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/02/2024 Whether Petitioners, are entitled to extension of 30 days in joining period on their selection as Medical Officers? HELD: It is the resp. who permitted the posts to be vacant while pet. were discharging their duty of SR by granting the extension, yet the very purpose of the extension was frustrated by denying the pets. 30 days of extension. But petioners shall not claim any benefits on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ for the period of out of service. Petition allowed |
| 518 | CW / 18548 / 2023 (SHIV KUMAR KALLA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/02/2024 Petitioners assailing orders granting prosecution sanction against petitioners working on post of Sarpanch,Ward Panch and Panch,on registration of FIR against them U/S409,120B IPC,U/S13(1)(c)(d),13(2) of PC Act,1988.Held;while passing prosecution sanction order as necessary facts mentioned in FIR, investigating papers and material placed before the Sanctioning Authority were duly considered,application of mind is reflected while issuing impd. orders.No ground for interference.Petition dismissed. |
| 519 | CW / 9443 / 2015 (DINESH KUMAR RAI VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/02/2024 Petitioner seeks mandamus for his appointment as Associate Professor in place of resp. No. 4 & also inquiring on him for concealing the fact of having more than 2 children HELD: Upon examination of inquiry report, it is evident that the entire allegation of petitioner is baseless and is founded on unsubstantiated information or simply hearsay. As the Petitioner did not challenge the inquiry report, court cannot assess its veracity. Petition dismissed. |
| 520 | CW / 2853 / 2015 (SANT KUMAR PAL VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/02/2024 Petitioner assailed the unlawful withholding of gratuity, leave encashment & CPC balance amount due to alleged delinquency of penalty imposed on college. Held:- Penalty imposed on college subsequently waved by the university. Therefore, balance CPF amount to be refunded. Petitioner rendered uninterrupted service of more than 5 years, hence right to claim gratuity, Permanent employee on a higher footing than temporary. All dues to be paid within 3 months. Petition allowed. |
| 521 | CW / 1830 / 2024 (SANGEETA CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2024 Whether the application form be rejected solely due to an inadvertent error made by the pet. in labelling it as a ‘conference paper’ instead of a ‘research paper’? HELD: it was an inadvertent error on part of the pet. she should not be subjected to such severe consequences as to be denied the recognition of a research endeavour. At most, the mistake made by her can be regarded as an insignificant irregularity rather than being labelled as legal irregularity. Petition allowed. |
| 522 | CW / 5092 / 2023 (MANISHA ALI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2024 Whether the petitioner be allowed to submit the P.G. Diploma certificate in Computer Application after the last date? HELD: Similarly situated other candidate has been given the benefit but petitioner was denied. It is directed that petitioner also be accorded the benefit of her PG Diploma of year 2012. And, she shall be appointed only, if there is vacancy available. She shall not be accorded monetary benefits but entitled to notional benefits. Petition allowed. |
| 523 | CW / 2042 / 2024 (DEEPIKA KUMARI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2024 Whether candidate is entitled to the benefit of notification dated 30.12.2010 which recognizes her caste as OBC and whether she can be denied the caste benefit because the updated certificate was submitted by her at a later date? HELD: The authenticity of OBC certificate is not disputed. A petitioner’s caste is included in OBC hence resp is directed to consider the petitioner's OBC Certificate and grant her benefits of her performance based on merit. Petition allowed |
| 524 | CW / 4137 / 2018 (MADAN LAL BHATT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2024 Petitioner assailing communication by Gram Panchayat,seeking instructions from BDO for affecting recovery from petitioner on ground that he was wrongly paid minimum wages as a semiskilled labourer,instead of unskilled labourer.Held;petitioner cannot be found fault with any excess payment made to him.Even if petitioner was wrongly paid as skilled labour,respondent cannot at this stage make recovery,since petitioner concededly working as Pump Driver,which is classIV post.Petition allowed |
| 525 | CW / 13906 / 2023 (POOJA JAIN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of the inaction by the respondents in according her seniority benefit in defiance of the order passed by this court dated 08.05.2018. HELD: All those candidates who have participated in the same selection process shall be given seniority with effect from the date when they joined the service Respondents are directed to accord seniority to the petitioner with effect from the same date as given to her counterparts. Petition allowed. |
| 526 | 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 |
| 527 | CW / 2871 / 2016 (PRAVEEN KUMAR NIMBARK VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/02/2024 Question is whether petitioners are to be accorded benefit of circular withdrawing earlier instructions that those employees who have 3or more children born after1.6.02 will not be entitled to benefits of ACP.Held;Provision related to restriction on govt.servant for joining/promotion on birth of 3rd child after1.6.02has been done away completely.Respondents directed to consider case of petitioners in light of notification/circular within 3months of petitioners approaching deptt.Petition allowed |
| 528 | CRLMB / 7831 / 2023 (RAJESH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/02/2024 Present bail application filed U/S 439Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. U/S8/18,8/29 NDPS Act.Held; in present case,huge quantity of Opium has been recovered.Despite cancellation of bail,petitioner has not surrendered before authorities on time and respdts. had to put in motion entire machinery to take custody of him and he is a habitual offender.Looking to nature of accusation and gravity of offence,bail cannot be granted.Application dismissed. |
| 529 | CW / 2405 / 2024 (GOMATI DEVI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/02/2024 Petitioner assailing denial of bonus marks to be awarded for work experience rendered by her under Swachh Bharat Mission is in violation of applicable for selection on post of Nurse Junior Grade.Held;Merely because petitioner claims that nature of work rendered by him is similar to candidates of other categories,but only difference being Swachh Bharat Mission is not mentioned in Rule 19 of Raj.AUHN Subordinate Service Rules,1966.Hence,benefit sought by her cannot be accorded.Petition dismissed |
| 530 | CW / 105 / 2024 (RAJESH KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/02/2024 Petitioner questioning validity of order of Supd.Eng.,Water Resources Circle,SriGanganagar.Held; present matter does fall within Sec.45 of Raj. FPMIS Act,2000,since provision clearly stipulates that Competent Authority has power of dissolution of Managing Committee in case of abuse of powers which is in contravention to provisions of Act.Order impd. has been passed by competent authority after extending ample opportunities to petitioner.No interference is warranted.Petition dismissed. |
| 531 | CRLMB / 1197 / 2024 (BUDHARAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/02/2024 Whether the bail be granted to registered owner of the vehicle who does not know about contraband being transported through his vehicle? Held: It is the solemn duty of the IO to bring on record cogent evidence to invoke statutory presumption u/s 25 of NDPS Act. As per the facts, the court believes that the applicant is neither involved in conscious transportation nor has he knowingly permitted the vehicle to be used for commission of the offence. Sec. 37, NDPS satisfied. Bail Allowed. |
| 532 | CW / 971 / 2024 (MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS DHANNA RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/02/2024 Petitioner assailing order of PLA,Bikaner, awarding compensation of 3lac in favour of private respondent Nos.1 to 5 U/S 22 of LSA Act, 1987 for grant of compensation for death of Smt. Santosh Devi who was hit by a stray Bull on Gajner Road, Bikaner.Held;petitioners have failed to discharge their duties for removal of garbage/eatables from streets resulting into stray animals wandering on streets,PLA had jurisdiction in wake of Sec.22A(b)(iv) of LSA Act,1987.petition dismissed. |
| 533 | CW / 19276 / 2023 (DR. GULABING PUROHIT VS RAJASTHAN STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/02/2024 Issue is when there are more than2projects located in different locations but in close proximity,can public hearing be conducted at common place.Held;mandate under heading Public Consultation of Notification is that public hearing shall take place at site or in its close proximity.In present case hearing was conducted at close proximity at different time and attended by petitioner and persons of 2areas,hence,object,for which public hearing has been mandated,has been achieved.Petition dismissed. |
| 534 | CW / 19386 / 2023 (DEENDAYAL PRAJAPAT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/02/2024 Petitioner aggrieved non-payment of salary/emoluments as are payable to Dist.Judge on being appointed as President of DCDRF,Jalor.Held;neither it can be said that petitioners right to practice as Advocate has been revoked in its entirety nor can petitioners status as an Advocate ceases to exist.Petitioners contention that his appointment be considered as Ret.Dist.Judge and not as practicing Advocate is misconceived.Petitioner is entitled to consolidated salary of Rs.60k.Petition dismissed. |
| 535 | CW / 9981 / 2023 (PINKESH DADHICH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/02/2024 Petitioner was denied appointment on Lecturer post.Issue is whether candidate can be granted advantage of his merit position in waiting list on vacation of interim stay granted by Court during selection process.Held;candidate can be granted advantage provided that candidate higher in merit did not join during waiting list period and vacancy is within same cate.in which candidate had applied.Directing respdt.to give appointment to petitioner upon verification of his credentials.Petition allowed |
| 536 | CW / 5863 / 2020 (MAHAVEER PRASAD TAPODI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/02/2024 Petitioner assailing the order passed by the respondents withdrawing the selection grade given to him due to seeking extension for joining because of family & health issues. HELD: The case of petitioner is on parity with his counterparts, who have been granted the benefit of the 2nd selection grade, and therefore should be accorded the same treatment. Due to delay in filing the petition, financial benefits are confined to 3 years prior to filing of the instant writ petition. Petition allowed |
| 537 | CW / 13095 / 2018 (MUKESH DOBER VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/02/2024 Petitioner assailing non-consideration of his candidature for being appointed as Dakshta Mentor (Maternal Health) pursuant to Advertisement issued by respondent No.2.Held; dispute is factual in nature and this Court under extraordinary jurisdiction is not equipped to decide disputed questions of facts.Petitioner has not even taken any steps to implead selected candidates against whom he alleges that they had got lesser marks than petitioner.No ground for interference.Petition dismissed |
| 538 | CW / 875 / 2019 (SHANKER LAL MEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/02/2024 Petitioner assailing action of respondents for not according benefit of pay fixation, regularization from date of joining instead date of completion of probation period. Held; respondents stated that benefit accorded erroneously and department in the process of reviewing its earlier administrative order. Uniform decision would be taken qua all students. No reason to interfere at thus stage. Petition dismissed |
| 539 | CW / 5271 / 2006 (SUBHASH CHAND GARG VS JUDGE,RAJ.NON GOVT.EDUC.INST.TRIBU.AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/02/2024 Petitioner assailing order of Ld.Raj.Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Tribunal,Jaipur,upholding termination order dt.22.12.00 and rejecting appeal.Held;petitioners services were hired on contract.In matter of contract, remedy is to seek enforcement of contract and no mandamus can be issued.After being taken back second time on contract basis,his services were again terminated but in writ petition,no specific prayer for compensation or quantum thereof sought.Petition dismissed |
| 540 | CW / 7194 / 2022 (SUGAN PRAJAPAT VS JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/02/2024 Petitioner a widow of deceased Exe.Eng.JdVVNL,Balotra assaling order of respondents rejecting claim of Ex Gratia amount of 70Lac for reason that it was not established that deceased died due to covid-19 virus while remaining on duty.Held;deceased was discharging his duties by making visit to CovidCare Centres to ensure continuous supply of electricity to such Centres,as evident from the logbook of vehicle.Deceased entitled of Ex Gratia.Petition allowed |
| 541 | CW / 6820 / 2016 (RENU CHOUDHARY AND ANR VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/02/2024 Issue is whether services of petitioners,who have been engaged on contract,can be substituted by way of contemplated recruitment of another set of contractual employees or by deputationists.Held;Trite law is that in service jurisprudence,that no contractual employee ought to be replaced by another employee on contract unless either his services are not satisfactory or there is any contemplation of making recruitment of regular employees on the post in question.Petition allowed |
| 542 | CW / 10306 / 2023 (MAHAVEER JAIN VS INCOME TAX OFFICER) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/02/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by reopening of assmt.forAY2019-20 by order of ITO Ward1(2),BikanerU/S148A(d)of IT Act,1961.Held;party accepted that certain transactions had escaped assmt. and with regard to such transaction,non-affording of opportunity of hearing is unsustainable in law and relief was provided.It shall be duty of AO to deal with all submissions made with regard to all nature of transactions.Asseesse not permitted to abandon machinery for assmt./reassmt.of tax and invoke writ jurisd. |
| 543 | CW / 13670 / 2023 (RAJ KUMAR SOLANKI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/02/2024 Petitioner assailing order of respondent denying him appointment on post of Teacher GradeIII due to pendency of criminal case U/S498A IPC against him.Held;case is squarely covered by judgement of Patram Vs. State of Rajasthan and benefit of same should granted.Respondents mandated to allow petitioner to have benefit of his performance in selection process and offer him appointment in accordance with his merit,subject,to availability of vacancy available as on date.Petition allowed |
| 544 | HC / 376 / 2023 (DHARMENDRA CHOUDHARY VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/02/2024 HB Petition filed as to question of maintainability only.Petitioner-father seeks custody of his 4yrs old minor son,from maternal grandfather and maternal uncle after sad and sudden demise of his wife.Held;custody issues which exist for a long period of time,may not be dealt with in HB petition,except under certain extraordinary circumstances and this case clearly does not fall within exceptional category,where ordinary remedy provided under the law is either ineffective.Petition dismissed. |
| 545 | CW / 10332 / 2015 (MANGI LAL SHARMA VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/02/2024 Petitioner assailing 2orders of respondent no.2 rejecting representations of petitioner.Held;multipurpose Worker(Male) is entitled to Pay Scale of Rs.950-1680 w.e.f.1.9.88,provided he is a person either possessing the qualification of Secondary with 1yr of Multipurpose Worker Training,or in the event of not having the requisite education qualification he has otherwise rendered 10yrs of services.Respondents directed to accord due benefit to petitioners by fixation of their pay.Petition allowed |
| 546 | CW / 12163 / 2018 (SHER SINGH DEORA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/02/2024 Petitioner assailing order directing recovery from him on ground that he was provided ACP on completion of 9yrs from date of first appointment instead of date of regularization.Held;no misrepresentation either overtly or covertly attributable to petitioner,which led to conferring of undue financial benefit by way of wrong fixation of his salary.Department having erred on its own,cannot turn around to put petitioner to adverse consequences by causing recovery as a bolt from blue.Petition allowed |
| 547 | CW / 11520 / 2023 (ARVIND SINGH CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/02/2024 Petitioner assailing inaction of respondents resulting in denial to change his category from General to OBC(NCL) after document verification round for post of Primary School Teacher.Held; it is case where petitioner deliberately orchestrated his candidature as general category and it is only after the entire selection process is almost over that he is seeking to change his category.Trite law is rules of the game cannot be changed once the match has begun.No ground to interfere.Petition dismissed |
| 548 | CW / 14484 / 2017 (BHAGWANA RAM BISHNOI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/02/2024 Petitioner who were absorbed in the State Govt. service aggrieved by denial of retrospective benefits of promotion in consonance of the verdict of this court HELD: It was expected of the department to apply the law across the board. Resp. are directed to accord the petitioners same benefits of promotion with effect from the same date as given to their counter-parts. Petitioners not entitled to any financial benefits prior to 3 years of filing the instant writ petition. Petition allowed. |
| 549 | CW / 4413 / 2017 (GYAN BAHADUR CHHETRI AND ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/02/2024 Petitioner assailing showcause notice issued after non-confirmation of finding on first charge,seeking explanation as to why services of petitioner be not terminated.Held;if Confirming Authority does not confirm finding on any charge,whether such finding is of guilty or not guilty,then powers U/S20of Army Act,1950r/wR17of Army Rules,1954 shall be available to be exercised by such Authority.In present case such confirmation is absent,hence,showcause notice is rightly issued.Petition dismissed |
| 550 | SAW / 453 / 2023 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS MANISH CHAUHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/02/2024 Appellant assailing order of Ld. Single Judge issuing mandate against state denying respondent to avail benefit of reservation for especially abled person under RPwD Act,2016and Raj.RPwD Rules,2018 as he is native of another State.Held; discrimination based on place of residence is against the mandate of Art.16(2) of the Constitution.Domicile rule cannot be applied in vacuum so as to deny benefit of reservation only on ground that applicant is resident of another State.Appeal dismissed. |
| 551 | CW / 16564 / 2021 (BANSHILAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/02/2024 Petitioner assailing order of District Collector,Pali,cancelling patta issued to petitioner.Held;patta was issued singularly in name of petitioner,despite objections.If for ancestral property Patta is to be issued and shares in property has to be distributed,allotment of Patta should not be done in favour of one party unless all other parties have relinquished their rights in favour of one person or there is no dispute with respect to grant of Patta in favour of one of parties.Petition dismissed |
| 552 | CW / 16090 / 2017 (VAHIDUDDIN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/02/2024 Can the pension and all the associated benefits from suspension to retirement be withheld after enquiry report favoured the petitioner. Held: Pension should not have been withheld without any plausible justification. The withholding of increments is deemed a punitive action under Rule 14 of the 1951 without holding the requisite departmental enquiry. Petitioner is entitled to receive the increment from the date of suspension until retirement date with 9% annum interest. Petition allowed. |
| 553 | CW / 5563 / 2015 (RAMGOPAL AND ANR. VS STATE AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/02/2024 Petitioner seeks direction commanding the respondents to remove the petitioners from the blacklist and allow them to continue to work as Mates under MNREGA scheme. HELD: Court cannot decide such allegations solely on the basis of affidavits and counter-affidavits, it requires adducing of evidence. The contract at the most could be extended for 5 years which is also elapsed by pendency of petition. On the issue of blacklisting of petitioners, it requires a thread bare trial. Petition dismissed. |
| 554 | CW / 16610 / 2023 (KANIKA SIKHWAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/02/2024 Issue is whether in event of an insufficient number of candidates in widow category, a divorcee can be permitted to switch her cate. to widow.Held;petitioners case is squarely covered in case of Nikhat Amin v.State of Rajasthan.Once category of Divorcee is shifted to Widow by giving an advantage of vacant post,her merit has to be considered as per cut-off marks in Widow category Offer of appointment to be given first to candidate obtaining more marks than pet. in Divorcee cate.Petition allowed |
| 555 | CW / 13206 / 2019 (SMT. BASANTI DEVI SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of order directing recovery of Rs.2801530 transpiring that petitioners deceased husband was earlier erroneously accorded higher pay band by department.Held;petitioner husband was not in any administrative position to accord any undue financial benefit to himself by taking advantage of his position.Action of department is unsustainable and is deplorable for having driven the widow to persue cause after her husband who died.Setting aside impd. recovery.Petition allowed. |
| 556 | CW / 5637 / 2004 (PUNJI LAL VS JUDGE,I.T.CUM LABOUR COURT AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2024 Petitioner assailing the award dated 03.11.2001 rendered by the learned Labour Court HELD: No material evidence was adduced by the pet. proving his employment status as (Jaldhari) waterman for a period of 28 years. Likewise, the department did not produce any records to substantiate their position. No adverse inference can be drawn due to the employer's failure to produce records. Affidavit filed by Distt. Education officer remained unimpeached in cross examination. Petition dismissed |
| 557 | CW / 2148 / 1999 (SHREE RAM BERWA VS RAJ.AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY BIKANER) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2024 The petitioner seeks the quashing of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and seeks quashing of a punishment order passed by the Registrar of Agriculture University, Bikaner. HELD: The audit report revealed gross misappropriation of funds in Krishi Gyan Kendra Sriganganagar. Petitioner failed to demonstrate any procedural irregularity in the enquiry proceedings. Criminal case was also registered against the petitioner u/s 420, 466 of IPC. Petition dismissed. |
| 558 | CRLMB / 14290 / 2023 (RAWTA RAM VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2024 Applicant preferred second bail application U/S439Cr.P.C. after dismissal of first bail application charged U/S 8/18,25and29 of NDPS Act. Held;petitioner has so far suffered incarceration of more than 4yrs.Hence,looking to prolonged custody of petitioner,it would not be appropriate to invoked the rigor envisaged U/S 37 of NDPS Act.As,certain exceptions exist within Sec. 37 itself and for those exceptions, bail can be granted.Bail Application allowed. |
| 559 | CW / 992 / 2024 (SHANTI LAL DAMOR VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2024 Petitioner assailing order denying compassionate appointment on ground that Late Shri Mangi Lal,did not complete his probation period,as he died within probation.Held; minimum requirement of 1yr as probationer has been dispensed with vide notification dt.25.4.12 by carrying out an amendment in RCADDGS Rules,1996.An employee,once appointed on regular post,even if dies in harness during probation,he shall stand on same footing as any other regular employee.Quashing impd.order.Petition allowed |
| 560 | CW / 15277 / 2023 (SUKH RAM DIDEL VS NARPAT SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2024 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. CJ(South),Udaipur,rejecting application filed U/O1R10 CPC.Held;petitioners are necessary party to suit proceedings undertaken by pvt. Resp. Nos1,by impleading petitioners as party respondents in suit proceedings, no rights of pvt. Resp. will be prejudicially effected.Quashing Impd.Order of trial court and allowing application U/O1R10 CPC petitioners are ordered to be arrayed as party respondents in suit proceedings initiated by pvt. Resp.Petition allowed. |
| 561 | CW / 19012 / 2023 (BABULAL VS SHRI MAHAVEER JAIN SWETAMBER PEDHI(TRUST)) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/02/2024 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. trial court observing that service of summons to Respondents was not complete,alleging respondent counsel of having connivance with Presiding Officer.Held;Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that as respondents have been impleaded in their personal capacity,it cannot be declared that service is complete,thus no indulgence is required in impd. order.Lawyers expected to maintain all restraint and not make allegation against Presiding Officer.Petition dismissed. |
| 562 | CRLR / 1027 / 2002 (SHAMBHOO LAL VS STATE OF RAJ.) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/02/2024 Petitioner impugns judgment of appellate court dismissing appeal which relates to judgment of conviction of trial court U/S 279,304A IPC,as jeep driven by accused hit a 7yrs child,causing its death.Held;burden of proving charges rests on prosecution.Rash and negligent manner is an opinion which depends on perception of person.In absence of evidence on record presumption of rashness and negligence cannot be drawn.Petition allowed. |
| 563 | CW / 6982 / 2021 (SUJAN SINGH KABAWAT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2024 Petitioner,a pensioner,assailing order withholding of pension and recovering an amount of Rs1144859 from retiral benefits.Held;petitioner is entitled to pay protection,it is a conceded position that he was absorbed into the Panchayat Raj department as a Gram Sevak from the Tilam Sangh department.Pensioners cannot be treated on par with serving employees.Setting aside impugned order and directing respondents to release all pensionary dues of petitioner within a period of 2months.Petition allowed |
| 564 | CW / 18747 / 2019 (PATRAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of not allowing him to commence his duties as per appointment order due to FIR pending against him.Held;Criminal trial concluded with petitioners acquittal.Employers are not obligated to appoint candidates even if truthful disclosures are made,particularly in cases involving serious criminal offenses.No allegation of concealment on part of petitioner.Alleged offence did not impinge on nature of his duties.Petition allowed. |
| 565 | CW / 9594 / 2018 (BHERU DAS VAISHNAV VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order recovering an amount of Rs198562 from his retiral benefits without affording him opportunity for hearing.Held;there was no misrepresentation either overtly or covertly attributable to petitioner,which led to conferring of undue financial benefit by way of wrong fixation of his salary.Department having erred on its own,cannot turn around to put petitioner,a class-III employee,to adverse consequences by causing recovery as a bolt from the blue.Petition allowed. |
| 566 | CW / 4848 / 2023 (NATHU RAM GOYAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order denying his retirement benefits/pension.Held;petitioner is undergoing serious matrimonial discord,resulting in ongoing legal proceedings.Unless a competent court has issued specific orders restraining deptt. from disbursing pensionary benefits to petitioner due to interests of his estranged wife,deptt. not to withhold disbursement of pensionary benefits and release service benefits,provided he is otherwise entitled to receive them.Petition allowed. |
| 567 | SAW / 1013 / 2023 (THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS ABDUL GAFFAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2024 Appellant assailing order of Ld. Single Judge, directing appellant State to grant him benefit of regular appointment w.e.f. initial date of appointment as granted to other employees. Held; order passed in favor of other employees not order in rem .Persons appointed on daily wages basis cannot claim regularization from initial date of appointment unless his appointment is established to be a substantive one according to rules. Appeal allowed |
| 568 | CW / 19182 / 2023 (DHIRENDRA KUMAR VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/01/2024 Petitioner assailing action of respondent not according him bonus marks for his work experience on post of Senior Research Fellow in Primary Health Center,Garh Chiroli, Maharashtra.Held;petitioner worked with State of Maharashtra as against the requirement of State of Rajasthan,petitioner being unequal to those who have,cannot claim equality.As,settled position in law is unequal cannot be treated equal.No grounds in any case are made out to interfere.Petition dismissed. |
| 569 | CW / 16830 / 2022 (MEENAKSHI TRIVEDI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/01/2024 Petitioner assailing denial of compassionate appointment to married daughter of deceased father.Held;present case is not governed under present definition of dependent rather governed by old definition,because matter and cause of action pertain to period prior to amendment notification dt. 28.10.2021.There is no such condition regarding first cate. as to eligibility for compassionate appointment and married daughter was also included by Larger Bench in case of Priyanka Shrimali.Petition allowed. |
| 570 | CW / 13436 / 2023 (SARITA CHOUHAN (SAINI) VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/01/2024 Petitioner herein seeking direction commanding respondents to initiate departmental inquiry against her husband and to terminate his services for accepting dowry.Held;extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not the remedy to settle personal scores arising out of matrimonial acrimony.Reliance placed by petitioner on Rule25A of Raj.CSC Rules,1971,is not only pre-mature but also totally unsubstantiated at this stage,as none of allegations qua dowry have been proved by competent court.Petition dismissed |
| 571 | CW / 3200 / 2005 (RAI SAHAB BISHNOI VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/01/2024 Petitioner assailing punishment order of stoppage of 2annual increments by disciplinary action initiated after SDOs inspection report citing petitioners absence at headquarters.Held;while passing impd.order,position of assigning charge of 2patwars was disregarded by disciplinary authority.There is no recorded finding indicating that petitioner was absent from other headquarters,where he held dual responsibility.Petitioner on that day was present at revenue camp in SardarKharta.Petition allowed |
| 572 | CRLR / 374 / 2020 (IRAQ KHAN VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/01/2024 Revision petition assailing judgment of Ld.Ad.Sess.Judge,Suratgarh,Sri Ganganagar dismissing appeal;upheld judgment of ACMM,Suratgarh,SriGanganagar convicting petitioner for offence U/S3/25(1-B)(A)of Arms Act.Held;Occurrence has taken place in year 2008.Petitioner has so far undergone period of 1mnt and4days incarceration,out of total sentence of 1yrsS.I.and also suffered mental agony of protracted trial.Maintaining conviction,reducing sentence to already undergone period.Partly allowed petition |
| 573 | SAW / 38 / 2023 (THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VS GYAN CHAND) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/01/2024 Special Appeal preferred U/R134 of Raj.HC Ord.,1952 against order of Ld. Single Judge,disposing petition and remanding matter back to appellant directing to reconsider the same on aspect of punishment of dismissal imposed upon petitioner on ground of submitting forged T.C..Held;Employee obtained employment on basis of forged document by fraud,therefore his eligibility in on stake,long tenure does not create sympathy in minds of court.Appeal allowed. |
| 574 | CW / 17032 / 2022 (RAJNEE GUJRATI VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/01/2024 Petitioners aggrieved of order terminating services of petitioners working on daily wages basis as Safaiwala.Services of pvt.contractor were hired.Held;employer cannot be forced to continue with service of an employee on daily wages.As,petitioners are at 5th foray of lis,hence,taking sympathetic view,placement agency shall be instructed to entertain applications of petitioners for hiring them on contract by seniority list,by giving due credence to past services rendered by them.Petition allowed. |
| 575 | CW / 1005 / 2024 (DR. VIJAY SHANKER PUROHIT VS THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/01/2024 Petitioner,retired Ass.Prof. in Pharmacology,aggrieved by order transferring him from GMC,Churu to GMC,SriGanganagar.Held;No prohibitory clause that Prof./Ass.Prof.cannot be transferred on reappointment.Retired employee cannot claim parity with the one who is in service.It transpires that transfer was due to work exigency in GMC,SriGanganagar in view of inspection carried out by NMC,whereby,deficiency in deptts.is required to be rectified in order to carry out academic affairs.Petition dismissed |
| 576 | CW / 11073 / 2018 (JASPAL SINGH AULAKH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/01/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of non-inclusion of his name in final list of selected candidates for post of Teacher Grade III,Level II (Punjabi Subject) and claim of having scored more marks than the cut off marks in the aforesaid examination.Held; it is neither pleaded nor shown on record that any eligible candidate in Punjabi teacher had lesser marks then petitioner.No grounds for interference.Petition dismissed |
| 577 | CW / 17133 / 2018 (ARJUN SINGH SISODIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/01/2024 Issue is whether petitioners,whose services were regularized pursuant to judgment and order dt.7.10.93 rendered by this Court,are entitled to receive pay and arrears of salary corresponding to regular pay scale of Class-IV post.Held;claim of petitioners is recurring in nature,therefore,being a day to day cause of action, they are entitled to seek benefit of judgment,even belatedly.But due to delay, award of arrears is limited to 3yrs preceding the filing of petition.Petition allowed accordingly |
| 578 | CW / 7177 / 2023 (CHAIN SINGH GEHLOT VS SUSHILA PARIHAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order of App.Rent Tribunal,Jodhpur allowing eviction petition of suit premises.Held;mere existence of other properties which are levied by respondents would not enure to benefit of petitioner in absence of any supporting material before Court to effect that they are reasonably suitable for petitioner to run her business.Object of Sec.9(i) of RCA,2001 is to relieve landlords from hardship so that he gets suit premises vacated early for his personal use.Petition dismissed. |
| 579 | CW / 4783 / 2020 (SATISH CHANDRA SONI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order terminating his contractual services because he was above 60 years, the same is not a legal ground to not renew his contract.Held; contractual employee stands on a much lesser footing than a regular employee and his service conditions are governed within four corners of terms and conditions of contract.Contract was for a limited period and cannot be treated in perpetuity by forcing employer to extend the same as a matter of right.Petition dismissed. |
| 580 | CW / 15131 / 2016 (RAJESH CHOUDHARY VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/01/2024 Petitioners grievance inter alia is to issue direction commanding respondents to implement roster system properly in public employment and to include PH candidates in OBC/open cat. seats in merit list.Held;arguments that advertisement provides for only one leg disability,therefore,disability in both legs renders the petitioner ineligible is absurd.Directing respondents that,subject to verification of applicability of said notification,petitioner shall be accorded due benefit.Petition allowed. |
| 581 | CW / 1799 / 2006 (KISHAN LAL VS RAJ.AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, BIKANER) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order/communication(LPC),reducing petitioner's basic pay and seeking recovering of Rs124704.Held;there was no misrepresentation of any kind on part of petitioner,which erroneously led to fixation of his pay in a higher pay scale at relevant time.Department discovered mistake on its own, after petitioner had superannuated and passed impugned order to cause recovery.Setting aside impugned order.Petition allowed |
| 582 | CW / 2744 / 2018 (MAHENDRA KUMAR BANGRWA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/01/2024 ISSUE: Whether the partition of land between two brothers in 1984 be regarded as collectively or distinct for the purpose of grant of appointment as outlined in MOU? HELD: Respondents No. 4&5, are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment in terms of the MOU. It was only after due verification that the proportionate compensation, according to area of the acquired land, was awarded to two separate owners/khatedars as per the revenue records.Petition allowed |
| 583 | CW / 12286 / 2017 (ANJANA KAVIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/01/2024 Petitioner assailing her non-appointment as pharmacist.Held;asper state government resolution,if a candidate completed a professional diploma course and later attained a higher degree,latter would not hold any significance in selection process.Selection will solely be based on minimum qualifications required for eligibility.Petitioner has not challenged resolution.Petitioner is having higher qualifications than minimum.Thus,she rightly not been found fit for being appointed.Petition dismissed |
| 584 | CW / 6457 / 2023 (DEEPAK MISTRY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/01/2024 Petitioner is aggrieved of action of respondents in not letting him join the post of Basic Computer Instructor in education department,due to an ongoing criminal trial wherein he is an under trial.Held;petitioner himself got FIR registered and was thus, a victim himself.Petitioners involvement in criminal proceedings do not constitute moral turpitude.Thus,reformative approach is warranted in addressing such matters.Petition allowed |
| 585 | CW / 9143 / 2021 (JITENDRA MEENA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order declaring him ineligible for constable post on account of registration of criminal case.Held;petitioner at relevant time was juvenile,benefit of S24JJAct,2015 was extended to him,not furnishing information of conviction in question,cannot be termed as concealment on his part.RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN is an absolute right.Hence,to give it a full meaning,State U/A12of Const.of India are lawfully restrained from seeking any information of juvenile delinquency.Petition allowed |
| 586 | CW / 12335 / 2012 (BAGH SINGH PARIHAR VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/01/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of not according him benefit of Amendment regarding monthly payments to contractual employees,issued by DoP,Govt.of Raj.Held;monthly contractual amount was required to be increased to Rs.6500per month.This increased amount was paid to counterpart contractual employees of petitioner who had retired in an equivalent pay scale as that of petitioner.Directing respds.to calculate and disburse arrears payable to petitioner in accordance with Amendment.Petition allowed. |
| 587 | CW / 8198 / 2021 (YOGEH KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/01/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of denial of posting on post of GNM by respondent on account of pendency of criminal proceeding initiated by his wife for offence u/S498A,406IPC.Held;as petitioner not only was acquitted in criminal case but also obtained an amicable divorce from his ex-wife.Hence, denying posting to petitioner due to then pending legal proceedings,no longer survives.Petitioner is entitled for posting and respondents are directed to issue an appointment letter to petitioner.Petition allowed |
| 588 | CW / 15924 / 2023 (NIKHAT AMIN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/01/2024 Petitioner challenging non-consideration of her candidature for appointment to post of Teacher GIII-LII(Urdu) in Gen.(fem.)cat. meant for widow/divorcee,She has scored more marks than joint cutoff meant for wid./divo.cat.,she has applied for post in divo.cat..Held;once cat. of Divo.has shifted to Wid. by giving an advantage of vacant post,her merit has to be considered as per cutoff marks in Wid.Cat.,directing respondents to consider her candidature in Wid.Cat. asper her merit.Petition allowed. |
| 589 | CW / 472 / 2024 (SURESH KUMAR GURJAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/01/2024 Grievance of Petitioner is non-consideration of his work experience certificate issued by NREGA, Sawaimadhopur for posts of Asst./Asso. Professor, on ground that he submitted it belatedly because of ongoing state elections. Held; delay in submitting work certificate by petitioner is not attributable to him. Petitioner approached competent authority on time for issuance of work certificate but due to election at that time his request was kept pending due to elections. Petition allowed. |
| 590 | CW / 19762 / 2023 (SUKH RAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/01/2024 Issue is whether certificate issued by CMHO,certifying that petitioner suffers from disability,should take precedence over opinion of Med.Board constituted by Recruitment Agency showing less perc.of disability.Held;certificate issued by CMHO does not mention name of physician or his specialty.Hence,it cannot be given precedence over opinion of Med.Board,comprising of specialists in their streams,which was constituted for entire set of candidates not solely for petitioner.Petition dismissed. |
| 591 | CW / 2016 / 2018 (MISS ASHWINI AND ORS. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/01/2024 Petitioner assailing denial of service benefits to them qua their mother sudden demise serving as ANM.Held;Being a co-accused himself in murder trial of his wife,has rendered father of minors ineligible to claim any service benefits.Upon determination of admissible proportion of all legal heirs in service benefits,amount corresponding to fathers share shall be withheld,while remainder shall be disbursed retroactively from date it would have ordinarily been disbursed to minors.Petition allowed. |
| 592 | CW / 14711 / 2021 (PRIYANKA PATHAK VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/01/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by action of RPSCnot recommending her name for appointment on post of Sen.Teacher(Eng)from waiting list due to non-joining of cand.from main list praying that dept.be directed to offer her appointment with all consequential benefits.Held;No fault can be found either with RPSC or with dept.or with selected candidates for delay that was caused by Force Majeure of COVID19 during relevant time.Permitting and directing dept.to appoint petitioner from waiting list.Petition allowed |
| 593 | CW / 15614 / 2018 (ASHOK KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order terminating his contractual service due to financial inability of GramPanchayat as there being no requirement of his services.Held;rights of petitioner are confined within four corners of terms of contract.Contractual employee cannot,as a matter of right,seek parity with an employee who is in regular employment.No mandamus can be issued to respondents to continue services of petitioner as reasons stated in impn. order which are self-explanatory.Petition dismissed. |
| 594 | CW / 3682 / 2020 (VANDANA DHOLPURIYA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/01/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of not considering petitioners application under sports cat. for post of Nurse,Junior Grade in Ayurved Department.Held;certificate issued to petitioner by UP Tennis Ball Cricket Asso. nor any other document on record reflects that so called sports is a recognized sport or even Federation which conducted tournament is affiliated with Indian Olympic Asso.,though recognized by Ministry of Youth and Sports,Govt. of India but same does not help petitioner.Petition dismissed. |
| 595 | CW / 16738 / 2019 (SMT. SARITA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/01/2024 Petitioner challenging her rejection for ANM post Petitioner not having registration certificate prior to cutoff date,claiming that she is more meritorious than last selected candidate in her category.Held;petitioner alone cannot be given privilege of applying after cutoff date and steal a march over those candidates who may have become eligible after cutoff date but could not apply earlier.Hence,no grounds to interfere.Petition dismissed. |
| 596 | CW / 11715 / 2023 (ASGAR ALI USTA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/01/2024 Petitioner aggrieved as his contractual service of 10yrs was summarily dispensed on ground that regular appointments were to be made for the same very post in question.Held;as Division Bench directed respondent to induct contractual lecturers,subject to vacancy was given a complete short shrift,hence,benefit of same be accorded to petitioner.Contractual appointment to petitioner shall be offered only if there is requirement of service and if there is vacancy existing as on date.Petition allowed. |
| 597 | CW / 3401 / 2016 (RAKJESH VYAS AND ORS VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/01/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of erroneous pay fixation while serving as HOD in various educ. institution.Held;fixation of pay at min.level ensures degree of equity among individual serving in similar position.Service in adhoc appointment count towards promotion to Selection Grade but continuation on same adhoc post on regular basis must be without break.Petitioners are entitled to higher payscale asper R.9(c)RCSRules,2001w.e.f.date of completion of 5yrs of their promotion to adhoc basis.Petition allowed |
| 598 | CW / 17479 / 2023 (ARAVIND KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/01/2024 Petitioner,having remained unsuccessful, inter alia,seeks direction commanding respondents to re-evaluate marks awarded to him in written exam for selection on post Upper Primary School Teacher.Held;unsuccessful candidate, having participated in selection process, cannot subsequently contest evaluation criteria simply due to his dissatisfaction with its outcome.Petitioners dispute primarily revolves around contested facts rather than legal issues.No interference warranted.Petition dismissed. |
| 599 | CW / 4955 / 2005 (STATE AND ORS. VS RAJENDRA KUMAR AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/01/2024 Petitioner assailing exparte order of Labour Court with further prayer to decide afresh petition claiming benefit of pay scale from date of initial appointment of respdts.Held;respts.cannot claim any parity with regular employees,prior to date of regularization.Prior to regularization,they are definitely entitled to min.of regular pay scale admissible at relevant time and all other allowances except for annual increments,which are payable only to regular employees.Petition dismissed. |
| 600 | CW / 18618 / 2023 (LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SAMUNDAR SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order of PLA,Sirohi, directing petitioner to release claim to respondent repudiated on basis of that she had concealed fact of undergoing the C-section.Held; if cause of death had been C-section,then non-furnishing information of C-section would have been fatal for claimant,there is no intention of cheating/fraud on part of claimant.Doctrine of legitimate expectation ought to operate in this case, claim is required to be given to claimant.Petition dismissed. |
| 601 | CW / 8085 / 2022 (RANVEER SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order dismissing petitioner from service on enquiry report of deptt.proceedings and rejecting reinstatement in service due to acquittal in criminal proceeding.Held;pending criminal proceeding,petitioner was held guilty of misconduct in deptt.proceedings as per inquiry report and dismissal order has attained finality.Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically negate the cogent findings made in inquiry regarding charges against petitioner.Petition dismissed |
| 602 | CW / 10842 / 2021 (BANSHI LAL BAGORA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/01/2024 Petitioner seeking directive against respd. to consider his claim on compassionate grounds and to appoint him to position of LDC instead of Class-IV employee commensurate with his education.Held;comp.appoint. are not provided as a reservation in service. Comp. appoint. do not necessarily have to be commensurate with education of applicant but should suffice for purpose of providing immediate succor and assistance to family of deceased employee,who was sole breadwinner.Petition dismissed. |
| 603 | CW / 2717 / 2019 (BAGDU RAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/01/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of respondents not passing relieving order permitting him to relinquish charge of his current posting as Sen.Teacher on ground of pending deptt. enquiry despite of being promoted.Held;said deptt. inquiry was subsequently dropped.Promotion of petitioner,even after dropping of departmental proceedings, has remained merely an optical pleasure without any tangible benefits being actually given to him.There is no impediment in according benefit to petitioner.Petition allowed. |
| 604 | CRLAD / 177 / 2018 (SAJJAN @ KALLA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/01/2024 Appellants assailing order of Add.Sessions Judge,Bhadra,Hanumangarh,convicting appellants under various offences of IPC.Held;criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy,owing to which,direct evidence is difficult to obtain.Offence can therefore be proved by adducing circumstantial evidence or by way of necessary implication.Mere production of evidence would not lead to conviction.It is its quality/reliability that matters.Trial Court has not appreciated evidence properly.Appeal allowed. |
| 605 | CRLTP / 2 / 2022 (NANDA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/01/2024 Present transfer petition filed by petitioner-wife with prayer that Complaint Case for offence U/S 494 R/w Sec.109IPC,pending before Ld. JM,Marwar Junct.,Pali may be transferred to Ld. JM,Jodhpur Metro.Held; matrimonial proceeding instituted by husband against wife, the convenience of wife has to be considered in contesting the suit and accordingly, matrimonial proceedings ought to be transferred where the wife was residing.Transferred case Ld. CJM, Jodhpur Metro.Petition allowed. |
| 606 | CW / 15010 / 2023 (RAJKUMARI CHAHAR VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/01/2024 Grievance of petitioner,specially abled lady is her name was omitted in PH cat. for post of Homeo.MO solely on ground that she did not submit her registration certificate on 10.8.23,when she appeared for her documents verification.Held;cut-off date to produce requisite reg. certi. was during prescribed dates of documents verification round.Documents verification was to conclude on 16.8.23 and petitioner concededly produced said certificate on 11.8.23,hence,eligible in PH cat..Petition allowed. |
| 607 | CW / 2533 / 2023 (INDER MOHAN SINGH CHHABRA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/01/2024 Petitioner is not relieved to join at transferred location on grounds that appointee at M.G.School cannot be transferred to any other Govt. School and appointee of TSP cannot be transferred to NON-TSP Area,hence petition.Held; services of teacher from M.G. School can be transferred to any other Govt. School has already been decided by coordinate bench of this court.Multiple transfers has been made from NON TSP to TSP area by Govt.Hence,Petitioner shoud be given benefit of same. Petition allowed |
| 608 | CW / 1808 / 2016 (SURINDER MOHAN PAHWA VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/01/2024 Petitioner seeks issuance of direction commanding respondents to reimburse all medical expenses incurred/claimed by him at Fortis Escort Hospital,Jaipur,for his treatment along with interest.Held; clarification circular states reimbursement of Rs.1,10,000 per knee surgery.Rationale for denying the petitioner,the benefit of the clarification untenable on the ground that it is post-surgery and cannot be applied retrospectively.Petition partially allowed |
| 609 | CW / 1281 / 2014 (BHAIRULAL MEENA VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order vide which,respdt.No5 did not make reference in matter of petitioner viz. grant of regularization as an employee class 4 post.Held;if upon verification of claim of petitioner qua length of service rendered by him,it is so found by respdt.No.3to4,petitioner then has a right to be considered for regularization,in accordance with law.Petitioner can file a fresh representation before competent authority i.e.respdt.No.2 for the same.Petition allowed. |
| 610 | CR / 177 / 2013 (PUSHPA DEVI VS CHANDRASEKHAR @ KALU) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/01/2024 Revision petition preferred against order of ADJ,Nathdwara, Rajsamand, whereby while deciding issue No.3 as preliminary issue,Ld.Court below held that suit in question would not be barred by res judicata.Held; once issue regarding ownership and possession had been decided against sellor in earlier suit,present plaintiff, being purchaser of said property from seller,would definitely be bound by same.Hence,suit in question is barred by res judicata,impd. order reversed.Petition allowed. |
| 611 | CW / 7777 / 2020 (KAMLA KUMARI CHARPOTA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order of rejecting her candidature for ANM post as she uploaded certificate of Nurse and Midwifery instead of ANM which was wrongly issued to her.Held;advertisement of ANM post clearly stipulated that candidates were required to submit original certificates at the time of document verification,petitioner had rectified certificate at designated time,despite this she has faced severe consequence and has been unjustly penalized for oversight of nursing council.Petition allowed. |
| 612 | CW / 11719 / 2023 (SURENDRA S. CHOUHAN VS MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY, UDAIPUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/01/2024 Bone of contention is whether a guest faculty member has right to continue merely because post on which he was earlier working continues to be vacant, notwithstanding that University is not in need of further service.Held;Merely because sanctioned posts are lying vacant,a person has no right to stake his claim for seeking appointment on the same,employer does not require services on sanctioned posts.Claim of petitioner does not survive as their services were no longer required.Petition dismissed |
| 613 | CW / 1213 / 2003 (DR.A.L.PANCHOLI VS RAJ.VIDYAPEETH DEEMED UNI. AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order of VC of Univ., whereby he was posted as Controller of Examination as a stopgap measure.Held;person in service of Univ. is aggrieved by any action of VC,they shall have right to appeal against such action within 30days before grievance forum of Univ.Petitioner acquiesced to his continuation as Cont. of Exami. by not filing any appeal and has turned around to seek add. wages for which no provision of law has been shown to entitle him.Petition dismissed. |
| 614 | CW / 2402 / 2003 (MANAGING COMM.,MAHAVEER UCHCH M.V.BHIL. VS RAJ.NON-GOVT.EDU.INS.TRI.AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order of Raj. N-GEI Tribunal, Jaipur, allowing application of respondent No.2, an ex-employee of the petitioner, filed 6yrs after having left employment, directing petitioner to accord certain financial benefits, pertaining to short duration of 1.5yrs when he was in service. Held; application filed by respondent No.2, was not only barred by limitation but was even otherwise also, sans any merit. setting aside impugned order, allowed petition. |
| 615 | CW / 6125 / 2013 (NAND RAM VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/01/2024 Petitioner challenging order of RCSA Tribunal, Jaipur, declining to intervene against decision of DC,Sriganganagar, vide which petitioner was compulsorily retired from service U/R 53(1) of RCS(Pension)Rules,1996.Held; In present case, both screening committee and reviewing authority applied their minds, concluding that petitioner is unfit to continue in service,hence,detailed reasons are not explicitly required.Petition dismissed. |
| 616 | CW / 4150 / 2020 (PAKA RAM MEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/01/2024 Petitioner assailing order of Dist.Collector,Pali,suspending petitioner from service pending departmental proceedings,as collector is not his appointing authority.Held;administrative instructions issued by Chief Secretary,specifically instructing that neither any transfer/suspension orders nor any disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by Collectors.It is upto the competent appointing authority to take any such actions in accordance with law qua those officers.Petition allowed. |
| 617 | SAW / 1119 / 2022 (SMT. DURGA DEVI MAIRDA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/01/2024 Appellant assailing order of Ld.Single Judge dismissing petition for compassionate appointment to widow daughter-in-law as she does not fall within definition of dependent in Rules,1996.Held;Rules have been amended vide Raj. CADDGS(Amd.)Rules,2021,expanding definition of dependents.Term dependent includes widowed daughter-in-law in term widowed daughter,while emphasizing need for State to provide solace to survivors of family under bereavement,by giving comp. appointment.Special Appeal allowed |
| 618 | CW / 1620 / 2021 (JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/01/2024 Petitioner seeking direction commanding respondents to appoint them as Teacher G-IIIL-II(Eng.)on posts lying vacant as per their merit status in wait list.Held;no merit in petitioner claim to appoint them in Gen.Cat.,merely because posts are vacant in other categories in which they were not eligible to be considered.No relief can be granted to petitioner as waitlist has been rightly acted upon and stands exhausted as successful candidates have been given appointment asper merit.Petition dismisse |
| 619 | CW / 4954 / 2004 (SAYAR SHINGH VS STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/12/2023 Petitioner was denied benefit of pension merely on technicality of using word resignation instead of retirement,while taking premature retirement on medical grounds and seeking compassionate appointment.Held;purposive interpretation of term has to be made to simplify purpose behind Circular in question.Mere change in vocabulary cannot deprive a person, like petitioner of fundamental right to receive pension in lieu of services rendered as he was otherwise fully qualified.Petiton allowed. |
| 620 | SAW / 347 / 2022 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS PHARSA RAM KALIRANA) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/12/2023 Appellant assailing order of Ld.Single Judge allowing respondents to continue their services,while quashing cancellation/termination of services of respondents.Held;present case pertains to respondent who were appointed as per due procedure,after securing place in merit list and are working for last more than 5yrs on post in question.There is nothing on record,which could suggest any fraud/concealment of material facts on part of respondents for getting employment in question.Appeal dismissed. |
| 621 | CSA / 280 / 2022 (MANOJ VS KAILASHCHANDRA) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/12/2023 Present sec. appeal assailing order of ADJ No1,Bhilwara dismissing appeal, confirming judgement of ACJ No3,Bhilwara.Held;accrued right of tenancy,if any,had been waived by acquiescence.Plaintiffs cannot be termed to be tenants of premise in question,hence,cannot be entitled to challenge decree for eviction.Despite eviction order having been passed long time ago,respondent could not enjoy benefit of said decree because of filing of present frivolous suit.Appeal dismissed on exemplary cost of 1lac |
| 622 | CW / 9681 / 2023 (VIPUL VS SNEHA) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/12/2023 Dispute in petition is confined to visitation rights of respondent-mother to meet her two sons as sons vehemently reject any persuasion to meet their mother.Held;Role of both parents is crucial in a childs upbringing.Directing father to take his sons to psychologist every weekend for counselling about importance of both parents and analyse reason for misconceptions against their mother.Registry of RHC and Family Court not to disclose parties identity,to ensure their privacy.Petition allowed. |
| 623 | CW / 5717 / 2021 (SURESH KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/12/2023 Petitioner assailing the suspension order passed by Respondents on account of registration of matrimonial case by his wife. Held: Impugned suspension order passed only because of matrimonial criminal case which is not justified by law. No govt. servant to be kept under long suspension without there being any misconduct or negligence in official duties. Suspension order quashed. Petition allowed. |
| 624 | CW / 6474 / 2017 (SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2023 Petitioner was acquitted in criminal trial U/S7 R/W Sec.13 of PC Act, 1988, no appeal was preferred, and the said acquittal having thus attained finality, petitioner was denied retiral/pensionary benefits citing that acquittal was based on ground of benefit of doubt. Held; benefit of judgment/acquittal should be conferred to petitioner. Directing respondents to release all retiral benefits of petitioner from the date same would have ordinarily become due. Allowed petition. |
| 625 | CW / 5140 / 2017 (DINESH KULDEEP VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2023 Petitioner assailing order of respondents, rejecting his prayer to give appointment on compassionate ground as his father declared dead. Held: Missing Person Report filed after 9 years of father’s missing, to secure govt. job. Compassionate employment is to provide immediate succor to family members on sudden death. Delayed action of Pet. to obtain compassionate appointment. Petition rejected. |
| 626 | CW / 973 / 2017 (JITENDRA MEENA VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2023 Petitioner assailing Order of Respondent No.3, recovering the increments granted to him as MTech degree not submitted within 5 years. Held: Institution to provide opportunity to teaching staff to complete the requirement as per faculty norms. Study leave granted after completion of probation period in 2013 and MTech completed in 2015. Respondents directed to disburse halted increments and refund the recovered fund with Interest. Petition allowed. |
| 627 | CW / 14881 / 2023 (DEEPIKA KUNWAR CHUNDAWAT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/12/2023 Petitioners appeared in REET2022 under reserved category,benefiting from reserved category concessions,faced verbal rejection by respondents citing that petitioners did not qualify under UR Category,hence petition.Held;Judgments/Circular are ensuring a level playing field,position of law is to effect that reserved category candidates after availing concession except fee cannot be considered under UR category,on ground that they secured cut off marks prescribed for UR category.Petition dismissed |
| 628 | CW / 13484 / 2017 (M/S. KUCHAMAN PETROL SERVICE VS HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTDAND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/12/2023 Petitioner assailing order of resp.1 by which agreement & subsequent proceedings between them was set aside? HELD: It is apparent that the dispute stems from the T&C of contract and the alleged violations thereof by both parties. Seeking enforcement of contractual rights through writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate recourse. The pet. ought to have pursued relief in the appropriate civil court to seek specific performance of its contractual rights. Petition dismissed. |
| 629 | CW / 17220 / 2023 (VIMLA DEVI VS MAHESHWARI SAMAJ, POKARAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/12/2023 Petition assailing orders of Ld.ADJ,Pokaran,directing to list pending application U/OVIR17CPC and to decide this application firstly and then decide application U/OVIIR11CPC.Held;trial court passed orders primarily based on reasoning and deemed necessary to first address plaintiff's already pending applicationU/OVIR17CPC,which concededly was filed prior in time.Trial court adopted correct procedure to proceed to decide applicationU/OVIR17CPC subsequent to prior application.Petition allowed |
| 630 | CW / 18491 / 2023 (SMT. DROPATI DEVI VS SMT. PANA DEVI) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/12/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld.SDO,Sujangarh,Churu seeking interim relief to maintain status quo.Held;as per Doctrine of LisPendens for proper administration of justice of final order to be passed by court in pending suit,any third party,who acquires title during pendency thereof should not claim either any equity of said proceedings.Court below erred in not applying S.52TP Act,which does not envisage that merely because there was no interim order,LisPendens cannot be applied.Petition allowed. |
| 631 | CW / 7711 / 2021 (NAWAL KISHOR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/11/2023 Petitioner appointed as School Lecturer (History) and given posting, subsequently appointment was cancelled citing pendency of criminal case against petitioner,hence petition.Held; husband and wife have buried their dispute and resultantly Court has quashed criminal case,thus, no criminal case as on date exists against petitioner.Quashed impugned orders,directing respondents to give appointment to petitioner within three months from date of judgment with all notional benefits.Allowed petition. |
| 632 | CW / 10961 / 2023 (GARISHMA VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/11/2023 Petitioner challenging denial of scholarship and recovery of scholarship already disbursed on basis of break in further studies.Held;petitioner is not at fault,for release of her earlier 2yr scholarship to her,as she had duly informed that she was studying in private coaching center to prepare for competitive examination by taking a break from regular study and yet she was accorded scholarship.Respondents cannot make retrospective recovery of scholarship already disbursed.Petition dismissed. |
| 633 | CW / 7149 / 2006 (FATEH LAL VS THE A.D.J.F.T.N0.6,UDAIPUR AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. ADJ(FT)No.6,Udaipur dismissing application of petitionerU/OVIIR14r/wSec.151CPC for bringing on record certain documents.Held;any sale without consideration is void ab initio and to that extent,petitioner was well advised that he has to prove receipt of sale consideration and it is only in pursuit thereof he has sought to place on record these documents and there is no doubt that same are relevant with regard to pending lis before Ld. court below.Petition allowed |
| 634 | CW / 4996 / 2015 (SHRI GANGA JUBLEE PINJRA POL GOSHALA VS MADAN LAL SARAN AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. Civil Judge No.3, Bikaner dismissing application U/O1R10 CPC filed by petitioner in suit for seeking permanent injunction. Held; if plaintiff chooses not to seek relief against a party therein, there is no requirement to implead them as party. If any decree is passed against defendant in suit, same cannot be enforced against petitioner herein since it is case of plaintiff himself that he does not wish to proceed against him. Dismissed petition. |
| 635 | CW / 17212 / 2022 (SH. ABHAY SINGH VS BHANWAR KUNWAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Court below, dismissing application U/OVIIIR1CPC declining petitioners request to place on record certain revenue records pertaining to ancestral land in question.Held;justification of petitioners in not placing revenue records earlier to be genuine.Certain delay would naturally occur if documents are allowed at this stage but given nature of relief,it would be of further assistance to Ld. Court below to render its decision based on proper evidence.Petition allowed |
| 636 | CW / 12529 / 2021 (AFZAL MIYAN @ NISAR AHMED S/O LATE SHRI MUNSHI NOOR MOHAMMED JI VS BASHEER KHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/11/2023 In eviction petition, Petitioner directed to deposit rent by interim order of Trial Court. Petitioner denied landlord tenant relationship. Held: Petitioners directed to deposit arrear of rent to meet the ends of justice which amount to be refunded if Eviction Petition not maintainable. As the order to deposit rent stayed, Trial Court rightly rejected the plea of striking off defense. Petition disposed accordingly. |
| 637 | CW / 6083 / 2006 (JK LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. VS U.O.I. AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of rejection of his claim for STS concession for Shakur Basti stream, citing non-fulfillment of targets.Held; Claim of petitioner was rejected after due application of mind, and it was not done with any malafide intentions of any kind.Petitioner is not entitled to any concession as claimed by it, and its representation was dealt by the Committee in accordance with the applicable instructions and it lacks merit in view of STS Concessional Policy.Petition dismissed. |
| 638 | CW / 215 / 2014 (YASHWANT SINGH AND ANR. VS NARENDRA SINGH AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. Civil Judge,Taranagar rejecting two separate applications, one U/O1R10(2) r/w Sec.151CPC for impleadment in main suit and second for temporary injunction.Held;suit is for permanent injunction and no relief has been sought against petitioners in pending suit. Applying doctrine of dominus litis, plaintiffs cannot be compelled to implead present petitioners,against whom they do not claim any relief.No grounds to interfere in impugned order.Petition dismissed. |
| 639 | CW / 7863 / 2015 (BAJRANG LAL MEENA VS RAGHURAJ SINGH AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of ADJ,Shahpura,Bhilwara rejecting application U/O7R14CPC to produce additional medical bills,citing absence of competent authoritys date and signature on bills and belated submission.Held;Court below got overswayed with fact that,due to delay on part of petitioner,application lacks merit.Bills appear to have signatures of hospital official with proper stamp thereupon.It is common sense that bills are not signed by Doctor but by hospital staff.Petition allowed. |
| 640 | CW / 1258 / 2001 (OM PRAKASH AGARWAL VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/11/2023 Petitioner challenging proceedings for recovery of subsidy amount under State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme,1990.Held; action of cancellation of subsidy was initiated on basis of audit objection taken at relevant time. Even if cancellation proceedings were to be initiated, same could not be done with retrospective effect. Impugned recovery proceedings violates principle of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to petitioner. Petition allowed. |
| 641 | CW / 2941 / 2023 (SHRI ROOPLAL BIRANI CHERITABLE TRUST VS MURLIDHAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. Rent Tribunal,Bhilwara rejecting application of petitioner for taking certain documents on record by way of secondary evidence.Held;Ld. trial Court earlier passed judicial order allowing these documents,later refused to allow them in secondary evidence sustaining the same old objections during cross-examination.Judicial order of accepting documents has attained finality,hence subsequent order of Ld. trial Court is set aside.Allowing application,petition allowed. |
| 642 | CW / 2426 / 2021 (PHOOL SINGH MEENA VS BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/11/2023 Petition seeks redress for allegedly wrongful withdrawal of allotment of petrol pump.Held;case is where valid reason has been given for withdrawal of proposed allotment.Petitioner cannot force corporation to give him undue advantage of a mere inadvertent mistake that took place in advertisement. It is not the case of petitioner that it is case of mala fide act of misrepresentation on part of corporation.Respondents shall take steps to refund security amount due to petitioner.Petition dismissed. |
| 643 | CW / 6837 / 2023 (NATIONAL MEDICOSE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Member Secretary,Raj.Medicare Relief Society,dismissing appeal of petitioner to accept his bid.Held;competent authority is fully capable of issuing appropriate orders in accordance with the self-explanatory procedure outlined in Sec.38 of Raj.Transparency in Public Procurement Act,2012.Case is not where the remedy provided under the statute is not equally efficacious so as to overlook the same and seek indulgence from this Court.Dismissed petition. |
| 644 | CW / 3972 / 2019 (SURJEET SINGH VS BHURA SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld.Add.Sessions Judge, Suratgarh,Sri Ganganagar dismissing application U/O9R7CPC,seeking recalling of ex parte proceedings initiated against him.Held;impugned order is per se arbitrary also violative of Principle of Civil Law.Valuable right of litigants to establish their cases by adducing evidence ought not to be taken away by Court except in case of their deliberate failure to produce evidence.Granting effective opportunity to adduce his evidence,allowed petition. |
| 645 | CW / 14108 / 2021 (HARISH KUMAR VS ISHRA RAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. Rent Tribunal, Barmer, allowing application U/O7R11CPC by respondent for return of rent petition filed by tenant.Held; Ld. Rent Controller ought to have exercised its jurisdiction to entertain petition filed before it.Relief sought by petitioner is not precluded under amended provisions of RC Act.SDM lacks jurisdiction to grant injunction.Ld. Rent Tribunal thus adopted an erroneous approach,impugned order suffers from inherent illegality.Petition allowed. |
| 646 | CW / 17477 / 2023 (NAITIK SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/11/2023 Naitik, a minor, abandoned by his father and separated from his mother by actions of respondents not renewing his passport. Held; compliance of necessary steps to process and issue passport to minor by single parent are not adopted by competent authority. Minor will lose benefit of naturalization and natural love and affection of his mother, which cannot be offered to him in absence of passport, directing respondents to issue passport allowed petition. |
| 647 | CW / 15373 / 2023 (RAYS POWER EXPERTS PVT. LTD. VS VISHWAS SHARMA) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. Judge, Commercial Court No.2, Jodhpur Metro., dismissing application U/S148R/W Sec.151 CPC of petitioners seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement. Held; reasons of delay in filing WS seem to be genuine.Serious prejudice would indeed be caused to petitioners unless afforded an opportunity to file WS. In absence thereof, they would be unable to adduce any evidence qua their defense, leading to unjust consequences in pending trial.Petition allowed. |
| 648 | CW / 2916 / 2015 (JETHMAL JHANWAR VS JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Add. District and Session Judge No.2,Bikaner,allowing application of plaintiff for appointment of Commissioner in suit of partition of property.Held;Local Commissioner cannot be appointed with objective of creating evidence in favor of one of parties, that too at such belated stage when case is fixed for final arguments.Dispute is qua joint title and extent share in property, which has to be proved by respective parties standing on their own leg.Petition allowed. |
| 649 | CW / 17472 / 2023 (NEETA RAWAL VS KISHANLAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/11/2023 Petitioner assailing orders of Ld. District Judge, Sirohi vide which applications U/O39R7 for seeking appointment of Commissioner and U/O39R1and2 for grant of TI were allowed. Held; both applications were allowed on same day vide separate orders and there is no procedural bar in doing so by trial court. Trial Court has inherent discretion to invoke power U/O26R9 at any stage during pendency of trial, either before commencement of evidence or even thereafter. Dismissed petition. |
| 650 | CW / 9243 / 2023 (LRS OF ANOOP SINGH VS ASHOK KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. Trial court rejecting application U/O18R17 r/w Sec.151 CPC of petitioner on ground of delay, for recalling their witness.Held;Delay in proceedings would not prejudice defendant at all,rather would be detrimental to plaintiff.Since there is sufficient cause shown by plaintiff to not produce PW-2,due to his serious medical ailment,whose affidavit was already on record,petitioner is entitled to produce him since he is now recovered from paralysis.Petition allowed. |
| 651 | CW / 11242 / 2023 (BHANSALI DYEING VS STATE OF RAJASTAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld.RERC allowing respondents to recover add.power purchase cost through Special Fuel Surcharge.Held;carrying costs arose due to non-payment of principal amount by respondent due to change in law.Quashed entire proceedings and orders to extent of levy of carrying costs on original principal amount.Respondents shall be accordingly free to proceed to recover respective original principal amounts from consumers through special fuel surcharge.Partly allowed petition. |
| 652 | CW / 17251 / 2023 (PARAMJEET KAUR VS SMT. SARJEET KAUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld.Trial Court,SriGanganagar rejecting applications of petitioner 016R1and2 r/w Sec. 151CPC and application for summoning of witness.Held; rules of procedure are handmaid of justice, administration of substantive justice ought not to be thwarted to procedure and a liberal approach should be adopted by Court for ensuring that no prejudice is caused to either side.Allowing both applications.Ld. Trial court shall summon and examine the named witnesses.Petition allowed. |
| 653 | CW / 13114 / 2023 (GULAM NABI VS ABDUL WAHID) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, dismissing applications of petitioner seeking permission to tender affidavit as examination in chief of defendants witnesses U/S 9 of RC Act, 2001. Held; Ld. Trial Court allowed said documents to be taken on record, while petitioner was denied opportunity to examine concerned witnesses for proving the same, hence impugned order amounts to approbating and reprobating at the same time.Setting aside impugned order.Petition allowed. |
| 654 | CW / 16454 / 2023 (RAJESH KUMAR VS LRS OF LT. SMT. SHARIFA BAI) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. ADJ No.1, Bhilwara, dismissing application U/O1R10CPC moved by petitioner seeking impleadment as party/defendant. Held; asper principle of dominus litis,litigant who initiates legal action has full control over proceedings as to whom to implead as a party and against whom to seek relief and as to how he has to conduct proceedings against each defendant. Petition dismissed. |
| 655 | CW / 4729 / 2023 (KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS AARAJ SHARMA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Court of Presc. Offi. Raj. Shops &Comm. Est. Act,Jodhpur whereby termination of services of respondent was held illegal,directing to reinstate him with consequential benefits.Held;Stigmatic order passed on ground of alleged misconduct and in violation of natural principles of justice cannot be sustained unless a proper enquiry in accordance with law has been conducted.Petitioner directed to forthwith comply with impugned order.Petition dismissed. |
| 656 | CW / 3705 / 2023 (AMRINDAR SINGH VS BALJIT SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. trial Court, SriGanganagar, rejecting applications of petitioner O/U16R1(3) and 013R10 r/w Sec. 151CPC by common order. Held; no prejudice would be caused to opposite party if prayer for summoning concerned official with record of pending criminal proceeding before ACJM Court is allowed.Petitioner rightly preferred an application for summoning of signatory of document to prove its authenticity.Setting aside impugned order, Petition allowed. |
| 657 | CW / 6590 / 2018 (PARASMAL SURANA VS PRAKASHMAL SURANA AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/11/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. ADJ No.3, Jodhpur Metro., Jodhpur allowing application of respondent for taking on record his rejoinder,by another order same court dismissed subsequent application for correction of aforesaid order by petitioner.Held; finding of trial court that if reply of plaintiff is taken on record that will bring complete factual position and help in just and proper decision of case is valid.Order of trial court does not suffer from any infirmity.Petition dismissed. |
| 658 | CW / 18052 / 2021 (VIDYA TANWAR @ TEENA BHATI VS ASHOK BHATI) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/11/2023 Petitioner assailed order of Ld. Family Court No.-1,Jodhpur whereby right of petitioner-wife to file reply to application filed by respondent-husband U/S9 of HMA,1955 has been closed.Held;Time granted by this court to file reply on cost was on or before 25.01.2022,the day on which the Court below itself was not functioning.Given nature of dispute,WS of petitioner is essential for proper and just adjudication of lis between parties.Petition allowed. |
| 659 | CFA / 593 / 2018 (HARIRAM VS HARISH KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/11/2023 Stay petition with prayer confirmation of interim order till final disposal of present appeal and for grant of mesne profit in eventuality of interim order being confirmed. Held;Grant of mesne profit is not a mandate in every matter wherein decree for specific performance has been stayed.Respondent not entitled to mesne profit as appellant is not earning any profit out of land in question as land was never transferred to plaintiff.Confirming interim order,disposed stay petition. |
| 660 | CW / 5769 / 2020 (GAYATRI VS MAHARAJA GANGA SINGH UNIVERSITY, BIKANER) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/10/2023 Petitioners were not allowed to continue Internship and to sit in IInd Year B.Ed main exams on ground of short attendance due to pregnancy, illness due to it and delivery of a child. Held; female student should not be denied examination opportunities due to attendance shortage caused by advanced pregnancy-related absences. Denying her violates constitutional rights. Petitioners refusal for attendance and examination in IInd Year B.Ed classes is deemed illegal and unjust. Petition partly allowed. |
| 661 | CW / 19133 / 2018 (SUNIL SINGHVI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/10/2023 Petitioner challenged order non-extension of benefit in stamp duty on gift deed to any member of family (brother) under 2013 exemption notification. Held; Sec.12 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act Act,1956 severs all familial ties through adoption. Resultantly, petitioners claim for an exemption based on sibling relationship is deemed invalid. Petitioner seeks exemption as Brother under 2013 exemption notification but does not meet criteria U/S12 of Act,1956, thus denied. Petition dismissed. |
| 662 | CW / 4511 / 2023 (BALJEET SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/10/2023 Petitioners challenged final voters list issued ascertaining turnover of voters of complete financial year preceding to date of election of society member. Held; if elections are held in first month of any financial year, instead of complete year, figures up to 30 days prior to date of election not date of notification should be considered. Petitioners have been found ineligible to vote as they did not have requisite turn over during relevant period. Petition dismissed. |
| 663 | CW / 5917 / 2021 (GAJENDER BISHNOI VS THE RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMM.) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2023 Petition preferred apprehending that his candidature will be rejected by respondents on account of having three children, as on date of advertisement petitioner had only two surviving children. Held; as per provision of recruitment, disqualification arises the moment third child is born. Even if one child subsequently passes away, disqualification remains. Petitioner permitted to file representation before the Sec. DOP, who shall explore possibility of dealing the situation. Petition dismissed. |
| 664 | CTA / 257 / 2022 (MUKESH PRAJAPAT VS SAPNA PRAJAPAT) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/10/2023 Transfer petition filed where firstly husband preferred divorce petition at Ld. Family Court No.1,Jodhpur,then wife preferred divorce petition at Family Court,Pali.Held;Sec. 24CPC grants court discretion in transferring subsequent petitions,while Sec.21A HMA,1955 imposes an obligatory duty on court,compelling specific actions in specific situations without discretionary powers.Transferred petition from subsequent court to former court.Transfer petition of husband allowed. |
| 665 | CW / 20 / 1999 (BRITE HENNA PRODUCTS VS R.P.F.C. AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/10/2023 Petitioner firm is engaged in making heena powder and proceedings were initiated under EPFMP Act,1952 holding that heena powder covered in Heavy and Fine Chemicals,Dyes.Held; Petitioners are not changing original nature of henna leaves as the end product has same nature, which Henna leaves have and does not fall U/S1(3)(a) of Act,1952.Petitioners are not required to comply with provisions of EPFMP Act,1952 as they do not fall under said Act.Quashing impugned proceedings allowed petition. |
| 666 | CW / 6106 / 2022 (SUSHEELA VS THE UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/09/2023 Petitioners assailing rejection of his claim under PMGKP Scheme, as documents submitted do not prove that death of her husband was caused due to Covid-19 related duty.Held;Typically,insurance policies have strict interpretations,yet during a devastating pandemic for voluntary health worker scope of policy may widened to provide relief in case of untimely death without pre-existing health conditions.Directing respondents to consider petitioners claim and release claim amount.Petition allowed. |
| 667 | CRLMP / 149 / 2019 (VAISHAKHA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/09/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Add. Sessions Judge No1,SriGanganagar dismissing revision petition against order of ACJM, Sadulshahar, taking cognizance against petitioner for offences U/S494,120-B IPC. Held;no discernible evidence exists to establish occurrence of second marriage, essential ceremonies allegedly conducted for solemnization of bigamous marriage between parties,as per Sec.494IPC,Sec.17HMA.Trial court and revisional court did not consider factual aspect asper S494IPC.Petition allowed |
| 668 | CRLR / 152 / 2016 (MUBARAK @ SALMAN VS STATE AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld.Add.Sessions JudgeNo.3,Chittorgarh allowing criminal prosecution to be withdrawn droppping proceedings against accused based on resolution by Sec.,Home-cum-Jt.Legal Remb..Held;PP did not mention any ground for seeking withdrawl from prosecutionneither court satisfied itself that executive function of PP has been properly exercised.Court has not even given consent.Victims right have been left unattended.Petition allowed. |
| 669 | CW / 10636 / 2022 (RAJENDRA PURI VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/09/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Municipal Board,Nokha,Bikaner cancelling patta of land U/S73-B of Raj. Mun.Act,2009.Patta was registered by misrepresenting facts.Held;any registered patta shall be amenable to interference by registering authority itself on count of misrepresentation of facts or in contravention of law, as per Sec.73-B of Act,2009.Sec.73-B, aims to stop illegal land allotment; empowers Municipal Body for revocation&lease deed cancellation upon violations.Petition dismissed |
| 670 | HC / 129 / 2023 (SMT. BEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/09/2023 Petitioner questioning validity of orders of detention passed under Raj. Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 by way of Habeas Corpus writ. Held; various criminal cases filed/pending against detenue terming him rightly as a dangerous person U\S 3 of Act, potentiality of detenues act is prejudicial to maintenance of public order.Seeking his preventive detention and the orders passed by State Govt. after Advisory Board upheld the detention cannot be faulted. Petition dismissed. |
| 671 | CW / 11280 / 2019 (MISS MADHU VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/09/2023 Petitioner challenging order of State Govt. regarding selection,appointment& dispensing with engagement of Aanganwari Karyakarta,Mini Karyakarta &Helper.Question to decide is whether a candidate can be discriminated or denied public employment on ground of her marital status. Held; Denial of public employment to unmarried women violates constitutional rights,impinges upon womans dignity. Circular& advertisement quashed to extend of requirement of women to be married.Petition allowed. |
| 672 | CW / 9559 / 2023 (GULAB SINGH RATHORE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/09/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Add. Registrar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur for dissolution of Board of Society and appointment of Administrator. Held; Natural justice principles are not mere legal formalities but binding obligations for decision making and adjudicating authorities. Impugned orders was passed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to Chairman and Management Committee of Society before its dissolution violates Sec.30(1)(c) of Raj. Co-OS Act,2001.Petition allowed. |
| 673 | ARBAP / 14 / 2021 (ASEEM WATTS VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/09/2023 Respondent tendered for military station roadwork.Applicant firm secured contract but disputes emerged due to delays.Arbitrator was appointed but matter not resolved,so applicant sought arbitrator substitution.Held;as per arb. aggreement arb. Seat is Bikaner and venue is Delhi.Issue U/S11of A and C Act,1996,so,falls within jurisdiction of this court.Due to pending nature of matter,it is imperative to appoint fresh independent arbitrator.Sole and Substituted Arbitrator appointed.Petition allowed. |
| 674 | CRLR / 829 / 2002 (MAGNIRAM AND ANR VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/09/2023 Revision petition assailing conviction by JMFC, Rashmi, Chittorgarh having been confirmed by Add. Sessions Judge No 1,Chittorgarh U/S 341,323 R/W 34,394 R/W 34 of IPC,1860. Held; trustworthiness of case of prosecution is to be determined on basis of material on record and on appreciation of ocular as well as documentary evidence adduced by prosecution. If facts of case are not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence cannot be upheld,benefit of doubt granted.Petition allowed. |
| 675 | CW / 18826 / 2018 (RANJAN TAK VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/09/2023 Petitioner contests wrongful declaration of unfitness due to visual constraint for post of MMO in ONGC.Question to decide is it just to disqualify a meritorious person with a lesser impairment,when reserved post requires same disability under RPWD Act,2016.Held;treating persons other than the person with benchmark disability to be medically unfit is irrational&arbitrary.Unfit due to not claiming reservation or lesser disability despite suitability for the post is unjust.Petition allowed. |
| 676 | CRLR / 1022 / 2002 (MAQSOOD KHAN VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/08/2023 Revision petition challenging order of Ld. Add. Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda dismissing appeal and upholding judgment of conviction by Ld.JMFC Badi Sadri camp at Mandafia, Chittorgarh. Held;deceased was seating recklessly on rooftop of bus caused his own unfortunate demise, it was rash and negligent act,Petitioner cannot be held responsible for that. At best, it can give rise to a civil responsibility. Acquitting petitioner of all charge, Revision petition was allowed. |
| 677 | CW / 205 / 2023 (NARAYAN VS HEERA LAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/08/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. Board of Revenue, Ajmer, setting aside judgment/decree of RAA and upholding judgment of Ld. S.D.O. regarding mutation entries of legal heirs in revenue record. Held; mutation entries in revenue record are only for fiscal purpose, does not create any title/ownership right in favour of person in whose name mutation entry has been made. Power to decide matter pertaining to legal heirs vests with civil courts and not with revenue courts. Petition dismissed. |
| 678 | CW / 12547 / 2022 (RAKESH KUMAR VS JODHPUR VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED (JDVVNL)) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/08/2023 Petitioner bought plot and municipality registered plot in name of petitioner. On seeking electricity connection,petitioner asked to clear past owners dues,hence petition.Held;Condition for new electricity connection requires settling past dues of premises. It upholds principle of caveat emptor, thus any liability arising under Electricity Act has to be fulfilled by purchaser,asserting petitioners responsibility to understand propertys encumbrances, negating feigned ignorance.Petition dismissed. |
| 679 | CRLA / 396 / 2008 (SHAHJAD KHAN VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/08/2023 Appellant assailing his conviction U/S 302IPC by Ld. Add. Session Judge, Nagaur. Held;Object of sec.313 CrPC is to permit accused to put forward his own version and reasons, if he so chooses,Courts can use accused statement but in conjunction with prosecutions evidence. Prosecution has successfully proved charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt, testimonies of all eye witnesses inspire confidence and all are trustworthy. Conclusion of trial court is rational and tenable.Appeal dismissed. |
| 680 | CW / 17851 / 2022 (CHANDRAVEER SINGH GODARA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/08/2023 Petition challenging order of Director Medical& Health Jaipur rejecting petitioner prayer to rejoin Medical Department based on his selection as Asst. Prof., ending his lien on SMO post. Held; Statute overrides estoppel. Appointment of petitioner as Ass. Prof. is substantive in nature in terms of both RSR and Rules, 2022, as per Rule 15 of RSR, Petitioner has been appointed substantively to a permanent post, thus he ceases to hold lien on SMO post, justifying rejection. Petition dismissed. |
| 681 | CRLA / 202 / 1992 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS IQBAL AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/08/2023 Appellants assailing judgment of Add. Sessions Judge, Bali, acquitting respondents for offence punishable U/S302 in alternate 302/34 of IPC.Held; No evidence of homicidal violence,Lack of medical proof; prosecution failed to prove charges.In cases of circumstantial evidence, facts should conclusively point to guilt, leaving no reasonable doubt.Main link in chain of circumstances missing.No compelling reason to overturn acquittal.Appeal dismissed. |
| 682 | CW / 5553 / 2021 (RAJESH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/08/2023 Petitioner seeks relief to direct respondents to transfer her from Dist. Jaisalmer to her home Dist. Jhunjhunu. Held; employee cannot be forced to serve in difficult area till indefinite period. Petitioner is a widow lady has to take care of her family and her case is fully covered by para No.2.5 of Circular. Directed to dispassionately provide suitable posting to petitioner in Dist. Jhunjhunu within 4 weeks. Modest cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed on state. Petition allowed. |
| 683 | CW / 10996 / 2022 (M/S AGARWAL DISTRIBUTORS VS RAJASTHAN STATE MINES AND MINERALS LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/07/2023 Petitioner assailing order of cancellation of E-auction, unilaterally by increasing the basic price of lignite mineral. Held; state's duty to serve public interest and uphold Constitution. E-Auction termination lacks valid public interest reasons. On finalization of contract, petitioner cannot be made to suffer on ground of public revenue variations and public interest. Petition allowed. |
| 684 | CW / 9902 / 2023 (APEX SR. SEC SCHOOL,JODHPUR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/07/2023 Petitioners challenge State-issued guidelines for private unaided school admissions under Right to Education Act, 2009. Held; controversy in question has already been decided by this Hon'ble Court in Neerja Modi School Vs. State of Rajasthan, whereby, held State Govt. can issue pre- school admission guidelines under Act 2009 for compulsory elementary education. Petitioners have right for reimbursement as per Act & Rules 2011; State must provide free education. Petition allowed. |
| 685 | CRLMP / 8398 / 2022 (NEELAM GOSWAMI VS RAMNIWAS BHADU) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/07/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Ld. ADM(City), Bikaner U/S145,146 of Cr.P.C., whereby Ld. trial magistrate has ordered to drop proceedings without disposing case on merit,passed in pursuant to order of revisional court/Add. Sessions Judge No.7, Bikaner.Held;statutory provisions have been ignored, order of revisional court has grossly been misread by trial Magistrate,also mandatory duties cast upon Ld. Magistrate U/S 145 of Cr.P.C. have not been complied with.Remanding matter back.Petition allowed. |
| 686 | CW / 5863 / 2021 (RAI SINGH SISODIYA VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023 Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed. |
| 687 | CW / 13191 / 2022 (KRISHNA SONI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023 Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed. |
| 688 | CW / 4571 / 2021 (PAWAN PAREEK VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023 Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed. |
| 689 | CW / 6493 / 2021 (SARLA DEVI VS THE UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023 Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed. |
| 690 | CW / 8203 / 2021 (M/S AMBAJI MINES AND MINERALS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023 Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed. |
| 691 | CW / 19419 / 2022 (PURAN MAL SWAMI VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023 Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed. |
| 692 | CW / 10930 / 2021 (DEEPSIKHA GAUR VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023 Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed. |
| 693 | CW / 2997 / 2022 (ROSHAN BHATI VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023 Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed. |
| 694 | CW / 4523 / 2021 (BINDESHWAR PAREEK VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023 Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed. |
| 695 | CW / 7118 / 2021 (MUKESH KUMAR VERMA VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023 Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed. |
| 696 | CW / 10078 / 2021 (M/S. DEV NARAIN MINERALS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023 Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed. |
| 697 | CW / 3401 / 2023 (BHANWAR LAL BHADIYAR VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/07/2023 Petitioner challenging notices of Local Military Authority prohibiting him raise his construction on his own patta-suda/JDA approved land.Held;construction in question is within 40mtrs of Defence Establishment,it would result in compromising confidential data of Defence, which cannot be permitted.State may strategically restrict Defense Establishments with their unique sanctity,as they cannot be breached only on basis of other local laws,which are applicable in the urban areas.Petition dismissed |
| 698 | CW / 13764 / 2018 (MANGI LAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/07/2023 Petitioner challenging order of Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, dismissing petitioner from services U/R19 of Raj. Civil Services (CCandA) Rules,1958 for conviction U/S138 NI Act. Held; conviction U/S138 NI Act neither constitute gross misconduct nor does it amount to moral turpitude. offence is of civil nature and does not affect society at large, petitioners dismissal is liable to be quashed. Petition allowed. |
| 699 | CW / 13015 / 2019 (SURENDRA KUMAR VS SANT LAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/07/2023 Petition assailing order of Ld. Senior Civil Judge dismissing application U/O11R1 CPC, allowing application of respondents U/S13(5) of Raj.P(CR and E) Act,1950 and struck-off defence of petitioner. Held; No evidence on record to show that petitioner ever tendered or deposited the due rent in compliance of order, application filed was an after-thought to cover up default committed by petitioner which is not bonafide. Petition dismissed |
| 700 | CRLAS / 605 / 2019 (GOKUL RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/07/2023 Appellant assailing the order passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act cases, Merta where he has allowed the application under Section 193 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. HELD: Cognizance cannot be taken twice by the same court in one proceeding. Law does not permit Sessions Judge to take cognizance on the second occasion for any further offence at the same stage either under Section 190 or under section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Appeal allowed. |
| 701 | CRLR / 529 / 2023 (KHEDARAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/07/2023 Petitioners filed revision against order of Ld. ADJ, Bhinmal stating scope of S.167CrPC has ceased, rejecting bail; High Court to decide detention legality from charge sheet filing to cognizance order. Held; chargesheet filed within 90days but cognizance not taken& remand extended which is unwarranted& disconfirmed by law. No legal bar for magistrate to take cognizance of offence& then decide application for adding add. accused. Petition allowed. |
| 702 | CRLMP / 3828 / 2022 (PHOOL SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/07/2023 Petitions filed U/S 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR registered for offences of IPC and SCandST(PoA)Act,1989. Held;Dispute appears to be purely civil in nature,criminal complaint was lodged with intention to harass petitioners,also investigation against them is illegal.Necessary ingredients for constituting offences are not disclosed from evidence and investigation conducted. Power U/S 482 Cr.P.C determines that continuation of investigation would amount grave illegality Quashed FIR allowing Petition. |
| 703 | CW / 11515 / 2016 (ASHOK KUMAR ROY VS STATE OF RAJ.ANDORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/07/2023 Issue is Whether it is permissible for State to prescribe lower qualifying marks/lesser level of evaluation for reserved categories in promotions.Held;Petitioner has not challenged relevant Rule.Non-selection of petitioner based on previous service record assessment is not bad,relaxation in qualifying examination for appointment and promotion are different.No yardstick can be laid down by court for determining adequacy of representation of SCs, STs in reservation in promotion.Petition dismissed. |
| 704 | CW / 1828 / 2022 (M/S PANCHMUKHI STONE PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/05/2023 Petitioner assailing orders of Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority respectively to the extent of stipulation regarding payment of interest at 15%per month.Held;no provision in Raj.MMC Rules,2017 permitting authorities under Mining Act to levy interest as high as 15%per month.Appellate Authority slapped huge demand without issuing any notice to petitioner is clear violation principles of natural justice.Dead rent cannot be demanded when mining working is not undertaken. Petition allowed. |
| 705 | CW / 1015 / 2023 (DEEPAK SONI VS ANAMIKA) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/05/2023 Petitioner assailing order of Family Court, rejecting application U/O 6 R 17 R/W Sec. 151 CPC. DNA test shows petitioner not the father. Divorce filed without adultery grounds, asserting right to DNA testing. Held; DNA Paternity Test Report cannot be used to set aside the conclusive presumption of paternity U/S 112 of Evidence Act. DNA Paternity Test should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, and best interest of child should be protected over sanctity of marriage. Petition dismissed. |
| 706 | CW / 17915 / 2019 (JOTA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/05/2023 Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner during his tenure as Patwari. Pending such proceedings, DPC’s considered case for promotion for 1999-00. Petitioner was granted promotion in 2014 against vacancies of 2008-09. Held; petitioner was promoted against vacancy year 2008-09, unamended Rule 171-A of Rules, 1957 should apply. Directed after correction of seniority list, petitioner shall be conferred all consequential benefits, including promotion. Petition disposed. |
| 707 | CRLAS / 51 / 2023 (YOGENDRA SINGH NEGI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/05/2023 Appellant being a doctor in Govt. hospital, in an inebriated state driven his car on road inside hospital in which he worked, resulting in death of a person and pregnant woman’s miscarriage filed bail application. Held; appellant being a doctor by profession, was well aware of consequences of driving a car in an inebriated state under influence of liquor, incidents of speeding and drunken driving are major contributing factors in road accidents. Bail application rejected |
| 708 | CW / 15517 / 2022 (BHAGWAN SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/05/2023 Petition assailing order of Exec. Dir., RSRTC Ltd. Jaipur, denying petitioners retiral benefits due to incomplete qualifying service on application of voluntary retirement. Held; Regulation 18(D)(2) of Orders, 1965 shows that employee who completes 20yrs of service or attains age of 45yrs, thereafter can seek voluntary retirement. Hence, service period of daily wages basis rendered by petitioner must considered for computation of period of 20yrs for granting retiral benefits.Petition allowed. |
| 709 | CW / 7131 / 2022 (MANISH VS RAJ KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/05/2023 Petition assailing order of Ld. Rent Tribunal, Churu rejecting impleadment application U/S 21 of RC Act, 2001 R/W O1 R10 C.P.C.Held;Ld. Tribunal committed no error in rejecting application Impleadment of any third party in case pertaining to dispute between landlord and tenant is not permissible under law. Question of title to suit premises is not germane for decision of eviction suit.No person can compel plaintiff to allow such person to become co-plaintiff/defendant in suit.Petition dismissed. |
| 710 | CW / 7133 / 2022 (MANISH VS BHARAT KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/05/2023 Petition assailing order of Ld. Rent Tribunal, Churu rejecting impleadment application U/S 21 of RC Act, 2001 R/W O1 R10 C.P.C.Held;Ld. Tribunal committed no error in rejecting application Impleadment of any third party in case pertaining to dispute between landlord and tenant is not permissible under law. Question of title to suit premises is not germane for decision of eviction suit.No person can compel plaintiff to allow such person to become co-plaintiff/defendant in suit.Petition dismissed. |
| 711 | CR / 24 / 2023 (KISHAN SINGH VS TARACHAND) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/05/2023 Revision petition preferred against order of Sen. Civil Judge, Churu, rejecting application U/O VIIR11 CPC and it was held that Court did have jurisdiction to try election petition U/S 43 of Raj. Panch. Raj Act, 1994. Held; Sen. Civil Judge is not persona designata U/S 43 of Act, 1994, ground that order being passed by authority acting as persona designata is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction U/S 115 CPC can ipso facto untenable. Remanded matter to District Judge, Churu. Petition allowed. |
| 712 | SAW / 1317 / 2018 (THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 713 | SAW / 911 / 2018 (HARSH RAJ VERMA AND ORS. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 714 | SAW / 957 / 2018 (VYAS DENTAL COLLEGE and HOSPITAL,JODHPUR VS STATE and ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 715 | SAW / 1286 / 2018 (THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 716 | SAW / 958 / 2018 (AARTI SHARMA AND ORS. VS STATE AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 717 | SAW / 1349 / 2018 (THE RAJASTHAN DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 718 | SAW / 1287 / 2018 (THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 719 | SAW / 1289 / 2018 (Dental Council of India, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN and ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 720 | SAW / 1316 / 2018 (THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 721 | SAW / 963 / 2018 (MAHENDRA MENSION and ORS. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN and ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 722 | SAW / 1288 / 2018 (THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN and ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 723 | SAW / 1272 / 2018 (THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN and ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 724 | CRLMP / 2261 / 2020 (M/S SUNIL MEDICOS VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Petitioner assailing order regarding framing of charge U/S 246(1) Cr.P.C. for a warrant case instituted on complaint by trial court. Held; order regarding framing of charge is per se illegal, as charge was framed without any pre-charge evidence being recorded against petitioner. Sec. 246(1) Cr.P.C. is peculiarly worded, requires pre-charge evidence to be recorded before Magistrate proceeds with framing of charges. Petition disposed. |
| 725 | SAW / 1308 / 2018 (THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN and ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 726 | SAW / 964 / 2018 (SHUBHAM GUPTA and ORS. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN and ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 727 | SAW / 1273 / 2018 (THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 728 | SAW / 1310 / 2018 (THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 729 | SAW / 1340 / 2018 (AARUSHI TREHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 730 | SAW / 959 / 2018 (A. ROSELIND ROVENI and ORS. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN and ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 731 | SAW / 1311 / 2018 (THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN and ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023 Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed |
| 732 | CW / 6969 / 2006 (LEELA DEVI AND ORS. VS AMAR CHAND AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/05/2023 Petitioner objected finding of Trial court that document in question was family settlement and did not require registration, therefore could be taken into evidence. Held; document in question was family settlement which does not requires registration, therefore admissible in evidence. Memorandum of family arrangements does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable property or not fall within purview of sec. 17(2) of Reg. Act. Petition dismissed. |
| 733 | CW / 17805 / 2019 (KHARTA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/05/2023 Whether action of respondents publishing and reviewing seniority list is contrary to Rule 171-A of Rules,1957. Held; Rule which has direct bearing on inter-se dispute between parties is amended Rule 171-A(2) providing that seniority of ILR shall be determined on basis of recruitment year /promotion on ILR post. Without laying challenge to seniority list and succeeding in such challenge, petitioners cannot claim that ILRs of batch No.24 be not given promotion before them. Petition dismissed |
| 734 | CRLMP / 3014 / 2018 (MANOHAR LAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/05/2023 Bone of contention is Whether revisional court exceeded its power in directing trial court to take cognizance against petitioner for offences U/S 341, 323IPC.Held;order of dismissal of complaint cannot be passed by trial magistrate in casual and mechanical manner.CrPC does not contemplate any power to trial Magistrate to dismiss complaint in non-prosecution at pre-cognizance stage,if it is not filed under any special act which may provide so.Setting aside order of revisional court allowed appeal |
| 735 | CMA / 46 / 2002 (THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS SMT. SAMYA AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/05/2023 Appeal assailing judgment of MACT, Gulabpura camp at Shahapura, dist. Bhilwara by which the tribunal has held only insurance company liable to make the payment of compensation amount to the claimants. Held; Breach of policy condition as per Sec.149(2)(a)(ii), has to be proved to have been committed by insured for avoiding liability by insurer. When proved Insurance Co. directed to pay compensation to claimants and recover same from owner of vehicles. Appeal partly allowed. |
| 736 | CRLA / 619 / 2016 (MUKESH KUMAR @ MANOJ KUMAR VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/04/2023 Appellant assailing judgment of Add. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer, whereby, appellant was held guilty of offences punishable U/S 302 IPC, Sec. 4 R/W Sec. 25 of Arms Act. Held; all contradictions indicated in case are minor in nature which does not bear any adverse effect on veracity of case of prosecution. Prosecution has fully proved guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, also trial court was fully justified to convict appellant. Appeal dismissed. |
| 737 | CW / 5132 / 2021 (PAPAPURI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/04/2023 PIL assailing validity of respondents action issuing directions to record all government lands situated in 9 revenue villages of Tehsil Rohat, District Pali, in favour of JPMIA Development Authority. Held; vesting of lands by operation of law U/S 27 of RSIR Act in Regional Development Authority which includes Gochar lands also as same is not saved from vesting by operation of law. Equivalent area of land has been proposed to be reserved for pasturage. Petition dismissed. |
| 738 | CMA / 1482 / 2019 (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SURVEY AND INVESTIGATION VS M/S RAMEWSHWAR LAL MANARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/04/2023 Appeal assailing order of Commercial Court, Jodhpur whereby objections U/S 34 of AC Act, 1996 preferred by appellant against award of Ld. Arbitrator have been rejected. Held; Court below rightly held that none of objection raised fell within Sec. 34 of Act, hence, award did not deserve any interference. Well settled principle is that failure on part of Arbitrator to decide in accordance with terms of contract governing parties, would certainly attract Patent illegality ground. Appeal rejected. |
| 739 | CW / 4419 / 2020 (RANJEET SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/04/2023 In spite of direction of Court to list case, said case not listed by the Registry. Application U/Art. 226(3) of Constitution filed by respondent not tagged with the record of the case till hearing. Held; Art. 226(3) has II parts-1st part deals with circumstances while 2nd part provides for consequence. Since, application U/A 226(3) has not been placed for consideration of court, interim order remains in currency. Petition allowed. |
| 740 | CFA / 1 / 2023 (RAJASTHAN STATE SHRIGANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS AJEET SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/03/2023 Appeal preferred against order of ADJ No.2, Jodhpur Metro, whereby application U/O VII Rule 11 CPC of defendant was allowed as consequence of which suit of the plaintiffs-appellants for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction was dismissed. Held; it is clear on record that present plaintiff was not party to sale-deed of which cancellation has been sought for. Meaning thereby, he was not the executant of the document of which the cancellation has been sought. Appeal dismissed. |
| 741 | CW / 620 / 2020 (GEETA DEVI VS STATE OF RAJ.) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/03/2023 Prayer to recall earlier interim order passed in present petition. Court- Petitioner, her counsel played fraud upon Court by filing a fresh petition on same facts, grounds, reliefs, stating that Co-ordinate Bench didnot deem appropriate to grant ex-parte interim order while granting interim order in other 2 cases. Earlier petition withdrawn, solely with a view solely to file a fresh petition. Interim order recalled, petition dismissed as an attempt to mislead Court, being barred by resjudicata. |
| 742 | CRLR / 1071 / 2021 (LALCHAND SONI VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/03/2023 Petition against charge u/S 7,13(1)D of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,120B IPC that he demanded bribe. Held- I.O failed to bring prima facie clinching materials against petitioner, should bring out real unvarnished truth. Ample evidence to show reason, motive for demand has not been sustained by prima facie positive evidence, amount not recovered, charge sheet submitted on unfounded materials. No prima facie ground for presuming committal offence. Trial Court erred,charge quashed. Allowed. |
| 743 | CW / 12910 / 2016 (DR. SS TAK VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/03/2023 Petitioner served as member of RPSC, Raj. for full term of six years and getting pension of Rs. 6000 per annum. Vide Notification, Regulations had been amended and retrospective effect has been given but petitioner was not given benefit as argued that notification can’t be given retrospective effect. Held that notification should be given hormonic and purposive interpretation, states stand cannot be countenanced. Petition allowed with all consequential benefit to petitioner. |
| 744 | CW / 7062 / 2022 (M/S CHETAK ENTERPRISES LTD. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/03/2023 Petition assailing issuance of notice U/S 148 of IT Act and re-assessment proceedings for year 2018-19 by respondents against petitioner. Held; notices have been issued, after considering the objections raised by petitioner. If petitioner has any grievance on merits thereafter, same has to be agitated before Assessing Officer in re-assessment proceedings. Petition dismissed. |
| 745 | CW / 14681 / 2019 (BADRI RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/03/2023 Court - Employee duly selected, taken in services expelled in disregard of principle- audi alterem partem. Art.14,16 COI infringed. Neither false declaration nor non-disclosure of case against him at time application form/police verification. While furnishing details of criminal case on getting appointment, disclosed fact of FIR. Respondents got character verification done, being cognizant allowed to join. Impugned order of removal illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, liable to be quashed. |
| 746 | CW / 1841 / 2019 (POKAR RAM VS MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL CUM SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2023 Whether gift deed of transfer of property ought to contain explicit condition providing basic amenities, basic physical needs to transferor to attract S.23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents And Senior Citizens Act 2007. Court-explicit condition to provide basic amenities, physical needs to be incorporated in deed, in absence not to be declared as null, void. No explicit condition mentioned, deed registered out of love.Impugned order has no reasons recorded for invoking jurisdiction. Allowed. |
| 747 | CRLMB / 12246 / 2022 (MOTI SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/02/2023 Present misc. bail application U/S439 Cr.P.C. filed in connection with FIR for offences U/S147,148,149,341,427,302,120B IPC and3/25 Arms Act.Court observed that petitioners tried to mislead this Court by concealing material facts necessary for adjudication of matter.During pendency of present bail application,2nd default bail application filed U/S167(2) Cr.P.C. before ACJM, Nawa, was rejected;Criminal Revision Petition challenging it was also rejected by revisional court. Application dismissed. |
| 748 | CW / 2800 / 2020 (BANSWARA SYNTEX LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/02/2023 The bone of contention in present petition is whether the place of removal should be considered as the factory gate or the Port of Export in case of exported goods. Court held that determinative factor as to when ownership of the goods is transferred from seller to buyer has to be considered in light of provisions of sales of goods Act, 1930. Export sale would fructify only when the goods are handed over to the shipping line whereafter, exporter would have no control. Petition allowed. |
| 749 | CRLMB / 625 / 2023 (SATYAPRAKASH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/02/2023 Bail application U/S 439 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner who has been arrested for offences U/S’s 365, 342, 376(2)(N), 376D & 384 IPC; FIR was lodged after long delay alleging sexual assault. Court held that considering teacher-student relation; age difference between petitioner and prosecutrix, it can be presumed that petitioner was in a position to dominate over will of victim. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecutrix could freely consent to advances made by petitioner. Application dismissed. |
| 750 | SAW / 34 / 2023 (DINESH KHARADI VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/02/2023 Writ petition challenging transfer order being violative of service rules, filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of concealment of material fact i.e. the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Same order is assailed in this appeal. Court held that Ld. Single Bench was absolutely justified in rejecting the petition, transfer order in question satisfies the requirements of the Rules of 2011 and hence, the same valid in the eyes of law. Appeal dismissed. |
| 751 | CW / 9151 / 2011 (NEMARAM GEHLOT VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2023 Employee of PNB opting to join pension scheme was rejected, thus petition. Court- issue of intention to get voluntarily retired is clear as 3 months notice in terms of governing Rules given. Cognizance taken by authority, no rejection by bank, so voluntary retired and not resigned. Entitled for pension on voluntary retirement as per regulations of 1995 as completed 20 years on date of applying voluntary retirement. Petitioner entitled to be governed by Settlement and Circular of 2010. Allowed. |
| 752 | CW / 3874 / 2022 (SANTOSH KUMAR NYOL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2023 Petitions filed for issuance of wait list according to Rule 277A of Raj. Pan. Raj Rules, 1996 against Teacher Gr. III post remained vacant. Court opined Rule provides for wait list equal to 50% of vacancies, said limit having already been complied with by Dept., it cannot be directed to keep on issuing wait list till all vacancies are not filled up. In exercise of judicial review, courts cannot substitute decision of Dept.; direct the candidates in waiting list to be appointed.Petition dismissed |
| 753 | CFA / 183 / 2008 (DEBI AND ORS. VS RAMESHWAR LAL AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2023 Appeal against suit decreed for declaration, cancellation of sale deed, permanent injunction.Court viewed specific documentary,oral evidence available on record, findings by Court below totally in consonance with evidence by parties, decision on issue-1 affirmed. Findings on Issue of revenue entries decided against plaintiffs as not within jurisdiction is right. Finding on adverse inference to be taken against party for non-production of documents admitted in possession affirmed. Decree affirmed |
| 754 | SAW / 575 / 2022 (RAJANI VS THE DIRECTOR AYURVED DEPARTMENT) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/01/2023 Appeal against order dismissing petition seeking direction to treat appellant as an OBC(Female)Divorcee category, consider her claim on post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade. Court- clear language of circular makes it prospective, under amendment decision by State Government to accept certificates issued to candidate of respective category after cutoff date subject to filing of an affidavit. Retrospective application not acceptable, cannot claim any benefit on strength of circular. Dismissed. |
| 755 | CW / 6195 / 2020 (NARENDRA SINGH BHATI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/01/2023 Action dereserving, declassifying 451 Bighas land from Gochar land and allotting it to PGCIL stating Rule 7 of Rajasthan Tenancy(Government)Rules,1955 not followed, allotted land is Gair Mumkin Magri’. Court-State Govt. approved proposal, directed declassification, at same time land of equal dimension allotted for compensating Gochar land. Available pasture area post allotment is 15 times of requirement as per Rule 6, mandates duly satisfied. Allotment not invalid. Dismissed. |
| 756 | CRLMP / 3716 / 2022 (SHRAWAN SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/01/2023 Cognizance against petitioners u/s 494,109 and 114 IPC. Court- offence u/s 494 IPC shall continue to operate against husband or wife who enter into a bigamous marriage, offence of abetment to bigamy cannot and would not operate upon anyone, be it family members or members of society at large, for offence cannot travel beyond that of a husband and/or wife. The ambit of bigamy is narrow and limited to erring spouses. Impugned orders quashed. Petition allowed. |
| 757 | CW / 10254 / 2019 (JAI JAGDAMBA PUBLIC SCHOOL SANSTHAN VS THE JUDGE, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE COURT, PALI) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/12/2022 Petition against order by Employees State Insurance Court, Pali rejecting application for temporary injunction. On objection to maintainability Court- Impugned order does not finally adjudicate rights and liabilities of parties, cited Force Motors Ltd.(2008)118FLR526),no appeal would lie against same, so petition maintainable. On objection to deposit 50% of recovery as per S.75 (2B) of Act, School directed to deposit 50% of demanded amount with recovery stayed till final disposal. Disposed. |
| 758 | CW / 9576 / 2011 (ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA VS RAJ. HIGH COURT, JODHPUR AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/12/2022 Petition assailing order whereby petitioner was compulsorily retired from RHJ services. Court held that reports of Inspecting Judges doubting integrity of petitioner which is accepted by Accepting Authority, proves that integrity is doubtful, material been considered along with entire service record of petitioner by Screening Committee, in the absence of any allegation of mala fide against officials, decision of compulsory retirement of petitioner does not warrant interference.petition dismissed |
| 759 | CMA / 953 / 2005 (SMT. PREM KANWAR AND ORS VS BUDHAPURI AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/12/2022 Appeal for enhancement of compensation, against order by learned Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.3,96,768/- with 6 percent interest. This Court- Tribunal rightly assessed monthly income, ordered multiplier of 13 instead of 6, enhanced other heads as per facts and circumstances, added future prospects in lieu of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi .(2017)16SCC680. Enhanced amount Rs.7,06,296/- to be paid by Insurance Company. Partly allowed. |
| 760 | CRLA / 250 / 1992 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS SHIV NARAYAN AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/12/2022 Instant appeal preferred to assail judgement of acquittal of accused under section 147,148,302 read with 149 I.P.C. Accused claims to kill the deceased under right to private defence of body and property. Court opined that plea of private defence is defended to extend of preponderance of probability whereas prosecution failed to prove the narrated story beyond every shred of reasonable doubt. Hence, no interference in impugned judgement. Appeal dismissed. |
| 761 | CRLMP / 8014 / 2022 (SANJAY SINGH KACHHWAHA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/12/2022 Petition to quash order by Special Judge, to allow application for taking CCTV footage on record as secondary evidence. Court-basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence require an accused must be given full opportunity to present defence, in accordance of law, endeavor must be to take on record all relevant evidences, is higher when an accused seeks to bring evidence in defence. Directed to allow strictly in accordance with law following Hon’ble Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar. Partly allowed. |
| 762 | CRLMP / 7455 / 2022 (RAHUL RAJPUROHIT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/12/2022 Petition against order rejecting registration of FIR but initiating inquiry u/s 200 CrPC. This Court - power u/s 156(3) CrPC discretionary, based on nature of offence, requirement of investigation by police. May be forwarded when complain discloses cognizable offence(s) and warrants investigation. Initiating proceedings u/s 200 CrPC justified, investigation not needed from records, committal of no cognizable offence indicated, indicated cutting of tree. Impugned order not infirm. Dismissed. |
| 763 | CRLMP / 7206 / 2022 (SIDHANTH SINGH CHARAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/12/2022 Court-Learned Court below rightly held that certificate in question not submitted incompliance with law. However, in view of judgement (2017) 8 SCC 570, (2020) 7 SCC 1, defective certificate may be curable at instance of concerned Court, depending on merits. Documents sought to be brought would be crucial to petitioner’s defence and in interest of justice grant of opportunity to file same after compliance of s.65B of Act of 1872. Direction to court to consider afresh. Petition Allowed. |
| 764 | CRLR / 1334 / 2022 (VIKASH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2022 Revision filed against order by Special Judge. FIR for offences u/s 363, 366, 376(1) of IPC, s. 3,4 of POCSO Act. This Court - on expiry of said period of 60 days, 90 days, 180 days, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of accused for his release on default bail, intent and preparation of accused has been shown by filing application for default bail, Court below was under an obligation to pass an appropriate order on application for default bail. Impugned order quashed, petition allowed. |
| 765 | CRLA / 283 / 1990 (CHUNNI LAL VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/12/2022 Appeal against convicted u/s 8,18 of NDPS Act,1985, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- .Court – neither ground for proceeding without search warrant recorded, nor intimated reasons to higher officers. So search fundamentally void. Search sans search warrant itself illegal, recovery, conviction vitiated. Conscious and clear breach of provisions of section 42 of NDPS Act. Appeal succeeds, conviction quashed and set aside. |
| 766 | CRLA / 327 / 2014 (KALA SINGH @ NARESH AND ANR. VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/11/2022 Court - Conviction of appellant Meena u/s 458,459,394/34,397/34,323/34 and 325/34 IPC not on sound appreciation of evidence, quashed, appeal allowed. Conviction of other accused for offences u/s 458, 459, 394, 397, 323 and 325/34 IPC upheld, not a fit case warranting award of harsh penalty of life imprisonment, trial court did not advert to mitigating circumstance, age of accused at time of incident, sentence for offences u/s 394, 459 IPC reduced to 10 years R.I, fine, appeal partly allowed. |
| 767 | CW / 12391 / 2022 (RAJNEESH LABANA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/11/2022 Petition seeking direction to consider names of petitioners for promotion in DPC for post of Senior Patwari for 2021-22 as senior, meritorious with consequential benefits. Court- as per directions by this Court petitioners accorded appointment and assigned seniority as per merit in terms of Recruitment 2015. Promotion is comprehended within ‘seniority’. Giving of seniority but depriving of promotion based on seniority negates very purpose of according seniority. Petitioners entitled. Allowed. |
| 768 | CW / 12557 / 2018 (KIRTI KACHHAWAHA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/11/2022 Petition seeking direction for grant of Higher Super Time Pay Scale Post in Rajasthan Accounts Services. Court-Respondents from earlier conduct for promotion have treated petitioner as duly appointed from 1992,unjustified if treated differently for Higher Super Time Scale.Eligibility from amended Notification that person of service to have completed 25 years of service.Words Actual Experience or Actual Working in service wrongly attracted. Not considering petitioner is wrong, arbitrary. Allowed. |
| 769 | CRLA / 240 / 1990 (PREM SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/11/2022 Criminal Appeal against judgment of appellant being guilty of offence u/s 304 part II, sentence of 5 years. This Court - protective umbrella of section 103 IPC was not available to appellant. Trial Court rightly held that disproportionate use of force cannot be said to be a justifiable exercise of right of private defence as was not under immediate apprehension of death by any stretch of imagination. Trial Court order upheld. No indulgence required. Appeal disposed |
| 770 | SAW / 72 / 2022 (THE SECRETARY VS SANGEETA VARHAT) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/11/2022 Whether an applicant with customary divorce entitled to apply in category of Divorcee Female without divorce decree by competent civil court granted before cut-off date. Court -Custom cannot supersede terms-conditions of recruitment process, cannot supplement process with candidate of various caste, religion, faith,communities. Terms framed to adhere to Art.14, 16 of COI. Exemption from presenting divorce decree cannot be sought. SAW 829/2017 held per incuriam. Orders set aside. Allowed. |
| 771 | SAW / 193 / 2019 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS INDUS TOWER LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/11/2022 Court - notification(5.03.2003) applicable only to class of leases specified in Article 33(a) of schedule appended to Rajasthan Stamp Act,1998 Act. Addition/substitution of words/phrases not warranted as it is against strict construction and literal construction principle. Respondent not entitled to benefit of notification, claim of reduced rate of stamp duty of lease deeds executed in its favour not tenable in law. Liable to pay stamp duty. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed. |
| 772 | SAW / 396 / 2020 (DOLI MANDIR SHRI MAHADEV JI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/11/2022 Appeal against order holding statutory remedy of appeal available against order by District Collector, order by DC challenged being without jurisdiction. This Court - notice never issued to temple, proceedings before DC without Jurisdiction, breach of principles of natural justice, violates S.89(3) of Land Revenue Act. Availability of statutory remedy do not hamper right to challenge legality of impugned order u/A.226 of COI. Order by learned Single Judge reversed. Order by DC quashed. Allowed. |
| 773 | CRLMP / 7276 / 2022 (SHYAM SUNDER SONI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/11/2022 Petition to quash pending proceedings wherein application as to cheque drawn bearing different expression in figures and words quashed by Trial Court. This Court – As per s.18 of NI Act, if difference between words and figures then one in words to be considered. S.138 of N.I. Act is required to be read purposively, to be interpreted to avoid mischief, to advance cause of justice. Neither notice vitiated on hyper-technicality nor inadvertent disparity fatal to proceedings. Petition Dismissed. |
| 774 | SAW / 602 / 2022 (BHEEYA RAM JAJRA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/11/2022 This Court- Law laid down that employer to consider Govt. orders/instructions/rules applicable to employee at time of decision. Govt. instructions clearly prohibit entry into Govt. service of an individual involved in an offence of moral turpitude. Petitioner facing trial under NDPS Act for serious offence against society and involves grave moral turpitude. Action of respondents in denying appointment is in accordance with law. No interference warranted. Dismissed. |
| 775 | CW / 1498 / 2017 (RAMDAYAL BALAI VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/10/2022 Writ filed against order holding petitioner not entitled to pension. This Court – two notices submitted, one with resignation other with Voluntary Retirement Service. Hon’ble Apex Court viewed terms “resignation” and “voluntary retirement” do not bear same meaning. Petitioner placed on record only one with VRS before this court, did not approach Court with clean hands. A dishonest litigant cannot be allowed to misuse judicial process for personal gains. Petition meritless. Dismissed with cost. |
| 776 | CW / 8066 / 2019 (VIPIN DEWAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/10/2022 Court cited Apex Court’s decision where cutoff date to be primarily one mentioned in specified service rules, if not then one in advertisement, if not then last date of submission of application opined that advertisement stipulated eligibility for post on or before date of result of declaring written exam, petitioners possessed diploma on or before date of declaration of written result, so not ineligible to hold post of Sanitary Inspector Grade-II. Petitions allowed. |
| 777 | CW / 6178 / 2015 (BHANWAR LAL NAGA VS STATE OF RAJ.) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/10/2022 Petition to quash charge sheet, charged being negligent while discharging duties, violating conduct rules. This court ruled that charge sheet cannot be interfered in routine manner unless it is established that same had been issued by an authority not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings, finding correctness or truth of charge is function of disciplinary authority as held in (2010)13SCC311.Petitioner directed to submit reply before Authority. Petition meritless. Dismissed. |
| 778 | CW / 5997 / 2015 (BHANWAR LAL NAGA VS STATE OF RAJ.) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/10/2022 Challenge to decision refusing grant of permission for voluntary retirement. This Court opined that decision not by appointing authority, notice by petitioner ought to be referred to Appointing authority that is Governor u/R 50(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules,1996, proviso states that when refusal not granted in time, it will be deemed acceptance and retirement shall be effective from date of expiry of notice. Letters by department quashed. Petition Allowed. |
| 779 | CRLMP / 5472 / 2022 (SAHUN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/09/2022 Court-Order of confiscation can be passed without waiting for conclusion of trial/conviction. Authorized Officer to pass confiscation order subject to s.52(5) of Rajasthan Forest Act,1953 stating no confiscation order can be passed where vehicle used without knowledge or connivance of owner. Clear finding that offence committed without knowledge of driver/owner. Officer’s order of confiscation fundamentally void, illegal. Fit case for exercising 482 CrPC, confiscation set aside. Disposed. |
| 780 | CRLMP / 5502 / 2022 (MOHAMMAD IMTIYAZ VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/09/2022 Petition invoked for quashing FIR registered u/s 420, 120B IPC, S-4, 5, 6, 18, 23 & 25 of PCPNDT Act 1994 denying jurisdiction of respondent 2 to register FIR. This Court regarded registration of FIR as illegal, contrary to provisions of PCPNDT Act, without jurisdiction. Authorized Officer might be an appropriate authority under Act competent to file a complaint but not empowered to register F.I.R. FIR quashed not affecting complaint case, petitioner released, Petition allowed. |
| 781 | CW / 8828 / 2022 (RAVINDRA KUMAR TAILOR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/09/2022 Violation of Rule 8 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj(Transferred Activities),Rules,2011 urged. Court held that petitioners alleged as surplus employees be governed as transferred employees, so compliance of Rule 8 sine qua non, orders in violation of provisions,unsustainable. Petitioners not surplus require compliance of Rule 8. Inter-district transfers where consent given as per DBSAW- 284/2022,there transfers in consonance with Rule8(iii),where consent absent-orders unsustainable. Petition Disposed |
| 782 | CRLMP / 4211 / 2022 (SHAILENDRA BHAKAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/09/2022 Challenge to framing of charges u/s 498A, 494 IPC and jurisdiction. This Court-complaint alleging multiple offences cannot be taken up in a bifurcated manner, investigation by Mahila Police Thana, cognizance by Court at Jodhpur not without jurisdiction. S.494 IPC criminalizes entering into a marriage during subsistence of first marriage. Time, location of solemnization is immaterial to constitute an offence u/s 494 IPC. Content of complaint, evidence sufficient to try for allegation. Dismissed. |
| 783 | CRLMP / 5735 / 2022 (SURENDRA KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/09/2022 This Court opined that from collective reading of S.154, 155(3), 155(4)CrPC, police can proceed u/s.154 upon an information alleging multiple offences u/s-205,420,468,471 IPC. S.155 (4) allows police to treat entire case as cognizable where both alleged to be committed, S.190(1)(a) permits Court to take cognizance on police report. Defence of incarceration requires evidence, can be considered at final hearing after evidence, petitioner liable for prosecution. Petition dismissed. |
| 784 | CRLMP / 1502 / 2022 (HETRAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/09/2022 Court - liability of uninsured vehicle be borne by driver,owner, it will have charge over vehicle. Considered R.10.2A of Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules,1990, opined that courts while deciding application for release of uninsured vehicles in accidents are required to consider amount awarded/claim petition for arriving just figure for which owner should furnish security. Trial Court ought to have asked security of Rs.15 lacs. In absence of cross appeal quantum Rs 8 lac unaltered. Petition dismissed |
| 785 | CRLA / 561 / 2017 (SHRIDEV SINGH AND ANR. VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 31/08/2022 Appeal against order u/s 319 CrPC, cognizance taken u/s 436,450 IPC, 3(2)(4),3(2)(5) SCST Act 1989. Whether Court ought to considered evidence at a higher standard than required at stage of framing of charge/taking cognizance? This Court-Special Court saw all facts, circumstances, assessed evidences beyond that of framing of charge. Petitioners named in F.I.R., in statements by prosecution witnesses, order allowing arraying of petitioners as accused in case pending before it is right. Dismissed. |
| 786 | CW / 6162 / 2022 (IN RE TALCHHAPAR SANCTUARY VS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT. OF RAJ., JAIPUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 31/08/2022 In suo moto writ petition Court directed to prohibit any act to reduce area of Tal Chappar Wildlife Sanctuary, to forward proposal for declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zone around Tal Chappar. Road passing through Sanctuary denotified. To merge more salt pans into forest area, to initiate legal proceedings converting Government revenue land around Jaswantgarh forest block into forest category, plantation of grass, trees. To form an expert panel of five persons to monitor operations. Disposed. |
| 787 | SAW / 244 / 2022 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN, VS CENTRAL MODERN TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/08/2022 Appeals assailing directions issued by Learned Single Judge to carry exercise of granting staff approval in a time after being satisfied with norms of NCTE, to communicate acceptance /rejection. This Court - Scheme of NCTE Act 1993, NCTE Regulations 2014 keep entire field occupied in grant of recognition for opening institutions, limited role to State. Withholding approval in garb of policy decision, applying it retrospectively to whom LoIs already granted rightly held illegal. Appeals dismissed |
| 788 | CW / 7527 / 2021 (MALIK BUILDERS VS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/08/2022 Petition against rejection of declaration holding ineligible to avail benefit of SVLDRS Scheme 2019. Court-Petitioner fell within mischief of s.125(1)(f) of Finance Act(No.2),2019 thus not entitled to avail benefit of scheme as suppressed material fact while submitting declaration to mislead and procure benefit by discharge certificate. S.129 (2)(C) of act invoked by authority and thus proceedings initiated presuming declaration never made. Authority rightly cancelled application. Dismissed. |
| 789 | CW / 14865 / 2016 (NARENDRA SINGH YADAV VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/08/2022 Petition to direct respondent to permit participation in counselling, promotion as Senior Teacher, quash candidates list. Participation denied stating English studied as compulsory subject and not optional. This Court on facts found English taught to petitioner be treated as optional, law laid down in DBSAW-598/2018, SBCW-13707/2018 that candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in graduation course satisfied object of Rules 1971 relied. Respondent action unsustainable. Allowed. |
| 790 | SAW / 100 / 2022 (RAHUL JAIN VS BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/08/2022 Special appeal against learned Single Judge dismissing petition filed seeking direction to fill 126 vacancies of Officer Scale-II (GBO) by allotting candidates on merit, preference to Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin. This Court viewed that role of recruiting agency- IBPS is limited to extent of conducting examinations, declining to allot candidates against advertised vacancies of BRKGB on ground of provisional allotment already made cannot be justified. Directed to allot post. Appeal Allowed. |
| 791 | CRLMP / 2947 / 2018 (SUNIL BHATI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/08/2022 Petition to set aside impugned order, prayer to allow himself for Narco Analysis Test. This Court opined that s.233 CrPC is an indefeasible right of accused to present evidence to support his defence. Denying a statutorily opportunity to render defence evidence at appropriate stage would be detrimental and violation of statutory right. Upheld opportunity to accused under s.315 CrPC also. Right being used at appropriate stage, so test be allowed. Impugned order quashed, petition allowed. |
| 792 | CW / 2300 / 2020 (TARA CHAND VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/07/2022 Orders by Central Administrative Tribunal Jodhpur that applicants not holders of ‘civil post’ so, not amenable to its jurisdiction challenged. Court opined that appointment not on sanctioned posts, so not holders of ‘civil posts’ within Union of India. Section 14(1)(a) of Administrative Tribunal Act,1985 qua the service disputes of petitioner, not attracted. Learned Tribunal rightly held that it did not have jurisdiction. Petition Dismissed. |
| 793 | CRLMP / 2057 / 2018 (JITENDRA KUMAR MEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/07/2022 This Court viewed that no offence is made out except for and factual matrix is only of a prolonged consensual domestic relationship, quoted State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992Supp (1)SCC335 which empowers Court to quash FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings under s.482 of C.P.C. when on face of it no offence is made out. Proceedings out of FIR quashed, Criminal misc. petition allowed. |
| 794 | CRLMP / 4670 / 2021 (NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU VS BHANWAR LAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2022 Petition by NCB against order by Special Judge whereby seized vehicle released. This Court ruled that when inconsistency between Cr.P.C. and NDPS Act is there, s.51 of NDPS Act shall operate, Cr.P.C. take a back seat. Power is there with NCB u/s 52A of NDPS Act. Order of release of vehicle quashed. Vehicle directed to be released to Narcotics Control Bureau to be disposed of strictly in accordance with s. 52A of NDPS Act. Petition allowed. |
| 795 | CRLW / 189 / 2022 (RAJENDRA @ GORU VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/07/2022 Petitioner challenged the order passed by Open Air Committee rejecting application for being sent to open air camp. Court viewed no illegality in decision. Authority justified as even after considering the word ‘ordinarily’ in a liberal sense, the nature of gravity of offence for those convicted and sentenced under the POCSO Act and like offences has to take note off. Petition Dismissed. |
| 796 | SAW / 684 / 2022 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS MS. SAJJANA) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/07/2022 Intra Court Appeal against order of learned Single Judge where in respondents petition admitted and appellant directed to appoint her for the post. This Court viewed the grounds to be frivolous, delay unexplained. FIR lodged against respondent was in relation to inter-family dispute, negative final report submitted before learned JM, FIR did not result in adverse action against respondent. Plea of being unaware of FIR by respondents substantiated. Appeal dismissed. |
| 797 | CRLW / 229 / 2022 (HANUMAN SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/07/2022 Petition challenging order wherein case diary returned with liberty of further investigation. This Court pointed law being settled on Court’s power to order further investigation until framing of charge. Opined that it is discretion of Magistrate to permit on subjective satisfaction on material available. Reasons for same could be express or implied. Non recording reason permissible as Court clearly perused file and application moved. No error in impugned order. Petition failed. |
| 798 | CRLW / 230 / 2022 (HANUMAN SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/07/2022 Petition challenging order wherein case diary returned with liberty of further investigation. This Court pointed law being settled on Court’s power to order further investigation until framing of charge. Opined that it is discretion of Magistrate to permit on subjective satisfaction on material available. Reasons for same could be express or implied. Non recording reason permissible as Court clearly perused file and application moved. No error in impugned order. Petition failed. |
| 799 | CW / 3649 / 2021 (PRAVEEN KUMAR PARMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2022 PIL against transfer of members of Mewar Bhil Corps to other districts as violating Rajasthan Scheduled Area Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service Rules, 2014.This court opined that S.34 of Rajasthan Police Act,2007 empowers state to deploy a police officer in any part of State. Members of MBC too form part of police force of State. Act stand on higher pedestal than Rules. In conflict rules will have to yield to provisions of Act.Deployment is different from transfer,deputation.Dismissed |
| 800 | MREF / 3 / 2021 (STATE VS SURENDRA KUMAR @ MANDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2022 Reference before this Court to confirm death sentence, to dismiss appeal. Court re-appreciated evidence led by prosecution for charges, discussed links of circumstantial evidence learned Trial Court found proved against accused. Court viewed that prosecution failed to lead proper evidence to prove circumstance of extra-judicial confession, failed to prove case by leading unimpeachable, acceptable circumstantial evidence. Impugned judgement quashed. Reference answered negative. Appeal allowed. |
| 801 | CRLMB / 4909 / 2022 (SIMORNA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/05/2022 Second bail application under S.439 Cr.P.C for offence punishable under S.302/120-B & 201 of the IPC and S. 4/25 of the Arms Act. Court opined that accused lady jailed since 2015 with minor daughter of 3 years, trial yet pending. Bail allowed on execution of a personal bond Rs.2, 00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/. Merits not gone into. |
| 802 | CRLMP / 6586 / 2021 (ANOP SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/04/2022 Petition challenging case pending before Judicial Magistrate registered under section 11 and 15 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Court opined that marriage is a sine qua non to constitute an offence under Act. Engagement of a child in any case does not amount to an offence under section 11 of the Act. Exercised inherent power u/s 482 regarding proceedings fundamentally void, abuse of process of Court, allowed petition. |
| 803 | CW / 3472 / 2022 (HAIDER KHAN VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/04/2022 Petition branded as PIL to direct Central Government to conduct census activities in specified time and declare Section 3 of Census Act, 1948 as ultra vires. Court opined petition as malafide, fanciful and unrealistic, prejudice to the public at large by noncompletion of the census operations not established, census activities are to be undertaken in accordance of Act, is a sovereign function of the CG, questioning bonafides of the executing authorities unreasonable. Petition dismissed. |
| 804 | STR / 9 / 2021 (M/S ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LIMITED VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, PALI) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/04/2022 Petition against Rajasthan Tax Board rejecting refund of mandatory statutory obligation pre-deposit with appeals. This Court disregarded finding recorded by Board that amount of pre-deposits were distinct, were not covered under claim filed by Department before NCLAT. Consequential relief pursuant to extinguishment of demand require a direction for refund. Boards order set aside. Amounts as mandatory statutory obligation while filing appeals before Tax Board shall be reimbursed.Revisions allowed |
| 805 | CW / 8472 / 2021 (JAL GRAHAN VIKAS SANSTHA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 31/03/2022 Petitions against land alloted to company by State Government for solar project. This Court opined that allotment is on Banjar land not on restricted land, does not-affect flora-fauna, natural flow of water, area beyond 50 acres could be allotted under amended Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Setting Up of Power Plant based on Renewable Energy Sources) Rules, 2007. Injunction against infrastructural project is against statutory provisions. Petitions devoid of merit, dismissed. |
| 806 | CRLTP / 14 / 2021 (AMIT AGARWAL VS NEETU AGARWAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/03/2022 Case pertains to conferment of jurisdiction upon the courts where temporary residence of party is there. Petitioners challenged jurisdiction of Bhinmal Court as respondents are temporary residing there. Citing Jagir Kaur & Ors. vs. Jaswant Singh AIR 1963 SC 1521 court opined that the term “resides” as under Section 126 Cr.P.C. would include both, a permanent as well as a temporary residence. No interference called. Petition dismissed. |
| 807 | CRLR / 233 / 2022 (AKHERAJ VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/03/2022 Court observed that as per 167(2)(a)(I)Cr.P.C, 90 days be computed when investigation to that particular offence began, 90 days is counted when investigation of fresh offence starts not from date of FIR, right to seek statutory bail accrues as indefeasible right only if remedy availed within prescribed window from the date of expiry of total period of detention of accused person(s) u/s 167(2)Cr.P.C., until filing of the charge-sheet. Trial courts order not interfered, petition dismissed. |
| 808 | CRLR / 1290 / 2018 (SMT MEENA VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/03/2022 Revision petition preferred claiming to modify impugned order passed for charges U/S 459 in place of S.458 IPC against the respondent as it suffers from an incorrect framing of charges, as respondent committed housebreaking by night without preparing for causing hurt. Court held that respondent whilst committing house-breaking, have caused grievous hurt to persons but not prepared for it. So, order is modified to the extent of framing of charges U/S. 459 in place of S. 458 IPC. Petition allowed. |
| 809 | CRLMP / 189 / 2022 (G.K. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS BALAJI MAKAN SAMAGRI STORES) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/03/2022 Petitioner challenged order whereby Appellate Court while allowing the application for suspension of sentence, also directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount and to furnish a bail bond against conviction U/S138 of the NI Act,1881. Court opined; dispute is civil in nature with criminal overtones, unlike S. 438 of Cr.P.C.,there exists specific statutory requirement U/S.148 of Act for deposit of minimum 20% of the fine during pendency of appeal. Order confirmed; appeal dismissed. |
| 810 | CW / 1936 / 2022 (VINOD SHARMA VS SMT. SHANTI DEVI) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/02/2022 Present petition challenges the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Jodhpur, ordering to pay maintenance and eviction of petitioner from the house by respondent’s U/S 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 R/W Rajasthan Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2010. Court held that Act of 2007 does not envisage an order of eviction even by Tribunal and order oppugned in petition dehors the provisions of the Act. order quashed; petition allowed. |
| 811 | CW / 1685 / 2022 (GANESH RAM CHOUDHARY VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/02/2022 Petition filed against notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment and order dismissing the objections. This court finds the dismissal order well-reasoned, income escaped assessment, unexplained amounts deposited in bank accounts, assessee did not give explanation even after several demands, tangible material available ‘as reason to belief’ invoking Section 147 of the Act by IT Commissioner to issue notice. Petition dismissed. |
| 812 | CW / 15150 / 2021 (BHANWAR SINGH VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/02/2022 Petition challenged the government circulars to regularize unauthorized occupations, possessions of land and construction as they are opposed to the various directions issued in case of Gulab Kothari, also to several statutory provisions. Court held Government circulars are not opposed to the Gulab Kothari judgments and permissible. Court finds no illegality in the approach of the Government and till Government brings a valid legislation, directions of Gulab Kothari must apply. Petition disposed |
| 813 | CW / 5916 / 2021 (SUSILA KANKARIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/02/2022 Present petition challenges the manner of choosing the multiplying factor at the time of determination and quantum of compensation awarded under the Right to Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition Act,2013. Court held that such multiplying factor was chosen after due deliberations and mature considerations. Meetings of high-level cabinet committees were held. Court doesn’t interfere unless the exercise of powers suffers from irrationality, which is missing in present petition. Petition dismissed. |
| 814 | CW / 17285 / 2021 (NIRMAL KUMAR PITALIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/02/2022 Petitioner challenged suspension done as FIR registered against him for accepting bribe. Urged that no preliminary inquiry, proceedings have commenced. This court opined that the State Government commencing disciplinary proceedings, making up its mind entails the commencing of proceedings u/s 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009 .Suspension made as likelihood of him influencing the inquiry and the evidence. Hence, petition dismissed. Directed to conclude inquiry within one month. |
| 815 | CW / 9620 / 2021 (M/S. SHERA RAM CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/01/2022 Petitioners challenged demand of furnishing additional security by respondents. Court noted that no alternative remedy is available, demand is contrary to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, is stranger to the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules,2013, so, nullity and the amendment to Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement(4th Amendment) Rules,2021 as to additional security came after the NIT issued, so does not apply to the present case. Petition allowed. |
| 816 | CW / 11818 / 2021 (KANDA EDIBLE OIL PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/01/2022 This Court considered that notices issued after 01.04.2021 u/s148 of the IT Act, 1961 for reopening assessments are issued without following the procedure u/s 148A of the Act and are invalid, thus quashed and set aside. Secondly on explanation of two notifications by CBDT - the subordinate legislation could not have travelled beyond the powers vested in the Government of India by the parent Act. Accordingly, these explanations are unconstitutional and declared as invalid. Petitions allowed. |
| 817 | CRLMP / 6337 / 2021 (SOURABH GARG VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/01/2022 Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR u/s 482 CrPC for the offence u/s 7 and 8 Prevention of Corruption (Amendment)Act, 2018 urging that previous approval for investigation mandated by s. 17A of Act was not taken and the impuged FIR is also a second FIR. This court opined that the investigation in earlier FIR brought new transactions, distinct links, separate incriminations, So the impugned FIR is not second FIR on same facts and restriction u/s 17A do not apply. Hence, misc. petition dismissed. |
| 818 | CW / 11993 / 2017 (SMT. SHOBHA DEVI VS JVVNL JODHPUR AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/01/2022 The order passed by concerned authority rejecting the application of married daughter for compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 was challenged. Court held that order passed was arbitrary, unjust, gender discriminatory and violative of article 14,15&16 of The Constitution of India, Hence, married daughter comes within purview of dependents, order is quashed. Writ petition allowed. |
| 819 | CRLAD / 185 / 2018 (MADHURAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/01/2022 The appeals were preferred under S. 374(2) Cr.P.C. assailing the order by the trial court convicting the appellants. After perusal of the record, it was held that ingredients required to constitute an unlawful assembly were totally lacking and the conviction of 2 of the appellants under S. 302 IPC was totally justified. Hence conviction by the trial court had been modified in the said terms. Appeals partly allowed. |
| 820 | SAW / 561 / 2020 (RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK JODHPUR VS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/01/2022 The said set of writ petitions challenged the Single Bench order upholding the order by the appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It was held, while deciding the said appeals, that dearness allowance would not become part of pay for calculating the amount of gratuity under the Act of 1972. Appeals allowed. |
| 821 | CW / 14040 / 2021 (DR. KARANJEET KAUR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/01/2022 The petitioners challenged the selection process adopted by Rajasthan Public Services Commission (RPSC), which was in conflict with UGC Regulations, 2018. It was held that there was no clarity under the Regulations as to shortlisting of candidates after scores are assigned. Petitions dismissed. |
| 822 | CW / 16367 / 2021 (SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT MANAG. COMMITTEE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/01/2022 The writ petition raised questions pertaining to rights of the children by challenging the policy decision of the State Government to change the medium of instructions to English in a school. It was held that changing mode of instruction would not be constitutive as a violation of fundamental rights but at the same time right of the students to receive instructions in mother-tongue are protected under Art. 19 of the Constitution. The conversion would be violative of Art. 19 & 14. Allowed. |
| 823 | CSA / 119 / 2021 (SHANKERLAL NADANI VS SOHANLAL JAIN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/12/2021 The present second appeal challenged the findings of the decree passed for eviction and dismissal of first appeal on the count that eviction decree passed by the civil court was without jurisdiction. It was held, when the Supreme Court had already stayed the effect and operation of a judgment passed by the division bench of Rajasthan High Court, then the same was not required to be followed. Second Appeal Dismissed. |
| 824 | CW / 11063 / 2019 (COL. MANOHAR SINGH RATHORE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/12/2021 The instant writ petition seeks to quash the order issued by the District Collector, whereby sanction had been given to uproot Prosopis Juliflora trees. The petitioner sought relief on the grounds that these specific trees prevent changing course of the Jawai river. The order of the Collector was affirmed on the reasoning that the said species of trees affect the ecology and directed that respondents should plant different species of bushes/trees while ensuring course of river to be as is. |
| 825 | CRLMP / 6269 / 2021 (RAJANISH KUMAR MEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/12/2021 The present petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court (POCSO Court) wherein the victim was discharged from being cross-examined while resorting to S. 309 Cr.P.C. It was held that petitioner would be allowed to cross-examine the victim only after depositing an amount for her appearance as the victim should not be allowed to appear before the court casually. Petition allowed. |
| 826 | CW / 15257 / 2021 (HATHI SINGH VS BHERARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/12/2021 The present petition invokes the jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution for the purpose of challenging order passed by the Election Tribunal. The question framed was whether verification of pleading amounts to alteration or amendment. It was held that verification of pleading is only alteration of pleading and due diligence as per provision of CPC is not required to be seen. Application disposed off accordingly. |
| 827 | CRLRF / 2 / 2020 (IN RE A REF. U/S 395 2 CR.P.C. BY DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PALI VS UNKNOWN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/12/2021 The Sessions Judge forwarded a reference for seeking clarifications pertaining to S. 125 (3) Cr.P.C. and put up 3 legal questions for the bench to answer. The reference was answered accordingly, while also pointing out the lacuna in the legislation and commending the suitable Government to consider appropriate amendments in S. 125 so as to simplify the procedure of recovery. Interim measures were also issued for the same. |
| 828 | CW / 4710 / 2020 (THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS RAJASTHAN TAX BOARD) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/12/2021 The present petition challenges an order passed by the Excise Commissioner for levying of duty on loss of spirit due to negligence on the part of Consigner under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1959. It was held that Tax Board rightly set aside the impugned Order while holding the manner in which duty was recovered by the state needs to be deprecated as it goes against the principles of natural justice. Writ petition allowed with directions. |
| 829 | CW / 1853 / 2021 (RAJENDRA SINGH CHOTIYA VS THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/11/2021 Two sets of writ petitions were filed challenging and supporting eligibility criteria for appointment for teaching positions in notifications issued by NCTE and Rajasthan State. The writ challenging the eligibility criteria of NCTE issued notification was quashed and declared to be ultra-vires while the second set of petitions were dismissed. All applications disposed off. |
| 830 | CRLAD / 167 / 2018 (GHEWARSINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/11/2021 The present death reference has been submitted by Special Judge, POCSO Cases seeking confirmation of capital punishment under S. 366 Cr.P.C. It was held that findings recorded by the trial court were conjectural in nature and hence conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. Death reference answered in negative and appeal allowed. |
| 831 | CRLMP / 2735 / 2015 (KAMAL KISHORE VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/11/2021 The present petition had been filed for quashing the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, whereby a direction was given for opening of history sheet against the petitioner. It was held that the impugned order lacked reasonableness and did not fulfill the mandate of Rajasthan Police Rules of 1965. Petition allowed, order quashed and set aside. |
| 832 | CW / 13400 / 2021 (VIJAY DIXIT VS URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/11/2021 The present petition challenges the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat under Sec. 22C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. It was held that impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was just and valid. Writ petition dismissed with costs. |
| 833 | CMA / 1037 / 2021 (KAMAL VS VARSHA) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/11/2021 The present appeal arose seeking exemption of 6 months time period under Sec. 13B of Hindu Marriage Act. It was held that, on light of the consensus arrived between the parties, the impugned requirement under the provision be waived and decree of divorce be granted. Appeal quashed and set aside. |
| 834 | CW / 14494 / 2019 (BHAGWATI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SURATGARH VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/11/2021 The writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Subordinate Court in execution case ordering the civil imprisonment of the petitioner on the ground of incapacity to pay. It was held that as the capacity to pay is not established, impugned order was quashed and set aside. Present petition disposed off. |
| 835 | CRLW / 541 / 2021 (GULVEER VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/11/2021 The instant writ parole petition filed by the petitioner seeking to assail the recommendations by Committee which rejected his application for first parole. The parole petition was allowed with further clarification that parole applications from related convicts should not be rejected and instead should be kept pending until the related convicts have availed the parole facility- if the reason for rejection was solely simultaneous grant of parole to the related convicts. Parole Petition Allowed. |
| 836 | CRLAD / 232 / 2019 (MAHENDRA SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/09/2021 The appeal was preferred by the victim praying for a direction to convert the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the respondents accused by the trial court into capital punishment. The appeal was found to be not maintainable while relying on the proviso of Sec. 372 Cr.P.C. wherein victim has been given 3 specific circumstances excluding the right to question the judgment of a criminal court on the count of inadequacy of sentence. Appeal dismissed. |
| 837 | WRW / 25 / 2019 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS RAMGOPAL VERMA) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/09/2021 The respondents filed writs praying, benefits accruing to Government servant under RCS(Pension)Rules,1996,be extended to Non-Govt.Aided Educational Institutions-Services be counted for pensions and other retiral benefits-Held-Order under review declaring Rule 5(ix),Rules2010 unconstitutional & holding employees appointed against sanctioned/aided posts prior RCS(Contributory Pension)Rules,2005 in aided institutions and appointed/absorbed under Rule,2010 be governed by RCS,1996, is recalled |
| 838 | CW / 2682 / 2021 (BHAGIRATH RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/09/2021 Petitioner indirectly challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated by respondents-Praying the proceedings to be kept in abeyance until criminal proceedings culminates-Held-Proceedings to be kept on hold-will be impracticable for the department to reach a finding because in a bid to prove the delinquency, the department will have to summon witnesses who are also witnesses to the trial-Petition disposed of |
| 839 | SAC / 2 / 2021 (JASPREET KAUR VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/09/2021 Intracourt appeals had been preferred against the common judgment of the SB of the same Court. The question put forth was that whether intracourt appeal would be maintainable from the judgment of same court passed in similar appeal. Held-decision of the DB of same Court affirming the maintainability of such an appeal was held to be per incuriam on the grounds that another decision of the same Court by DB on the same matter had not been referred while rendering the said maintainability. Dismissed |
| 840 | CRLW / 41 / 2021 (OM PRAKASH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/09/2021 Petitioner,a life convict,assailing the decision of the Rajasthan Open Air Camp Committee, whereby, his application for sending him to Open Air Camp, was rejected-Held-Petitioner was on parole for 20 days, whereafter, he didn’t return in time and FIR was lodged-His application rejected by Committee, reason citing violation of Rule 3(c)&(d),Parole Rules-Rejection of application just and as per law-Petition Dismissed |
| 841 | CW / 10353 / 2021 (SUBHASH CHANDRA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/09/2021 Petitioners herein are Constables/HCs/ASI in Police Department, challenged their transfers effected by order dated 05.08.2021-contending that the same is contrary to Rule 26,Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules,1989-Held-Rule 26 mandates district wise seniority for Constable/HC and ASI range wise-The impugned order making inter-district transfers for Constables/HCs and inter-range transfers for ASI, contrary to Rule26-Petitions Allowed |
| 842 | CW / 12323 / 2020 (UNION OF INDIA VS JAGDISH CHANDRA JAT) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/08/2021 Respondent committed mistake in darkening bubble on OMR sheet in relation to his roll number,resulting in answer sheet not getting checked with the indication,‘error’-CAT ordered in favour of Respondent-Held-Candidates repeatedly forewarned for taking care-OMR sheets are electronically checked for ensuring minimum human intervention and secrecy and credibility of examination-Allowing such sheets can compromise with secrecy-Petition Allowed |
| 843 | WCP / 909 / 2019 (SARDAR MARKET GIRDIKOT VYAPAR SANSTHA, JODHPUR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/08/2021 Unauthorized encroachments-Instances,wherein footsteps etc.,illegally erected by shopkeepers in market to increase their business area. Observation- Such encroachments violate Sec244,Municipalities Act-Directions-Municipal Corporation Commissioners to coordinate with Police Commissioner for CCTV feeds of city to keep encroachments in check-All such encroachments be removed forthwith-Street Vendors/Hawkers can apply for vending zones’ slot within fixed time |
| 844 | CW / 312 / 2021 (KRISHNA DEVI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/08/2021 Petitioner challenged transfer orders issued by Medical & Health Department being contrary to R.8 of Rules,2011-Held-R.8 not a procedural requirement or formality of processing an application,etc-It is a power given to the State to effect transfers-cannot be equated with a provision, meant to facilitate justice and furthers its ends-Petition allowed |
| 845 | HC / 212 / 2020 (URMILADEVI VS THE STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/07/2021 Petitioner’s husband missing-Dead body recovered from railway track resembling Corpus-Petitioner refused to identify dead body as Corpus-No DNA Samples preserved-Held-Close inspection of photographs of dead body and Corpus, share uncanny resemblance-Body recovered next morning after Corpus went missing-Body to be that of Corpus-Direction-Collecting Viscera Samples in unidentified dead body cases |
| 846 | CRLW / 295 / 2021 (RAKESH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/07/2021 Petitioner undergoing L.I.-1st parole accepted after 14 years-Relaxation of surety bonds and imposition prayed in Petition-Held-R.10 of Rajasthan Parole Rules,2021-right of parole to every prisoner after serving particular part of punishment-Petitioner granted 40 days parole on personal bond-Hindi sign boards with gist of Rule10 to display in every central jail |
| 847 | CFA / 385 / 2009 (SALAM SINGH AND ORS VS MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PILIBANGA) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/07/2021 Applications under Or.XXII R. 3 & 9 CPC and u/s 5, Limitation Act by LRs of 2 Appellants after 8years&2.5years-Held-Applications dismissed. Whether Appeal to abate qua 2 Appellants or whole-Held-All Appellants filed suit to exercise right as co-owners u/s 45,TP Act-Passing of Contradictory Decree, if Appeal continued-Appeal abated as whole |
| 848 | CRLMB / 7695 / 2021 (BHANWAR SINGH @ BHARAT SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/07/2021 Whether a bail application under Sec.439 CrPC would lie before the High Court against an order rejecting bail application under Sec.167(2)(a)(i) of CrPC by the learned ADJ-Held- application under Sec. 439 CrPC would not be maintainable against an order passed on an application under Sec. 167(2)(a)(i) CrPC. Revision application is maintainable against such order and directed to convert it as Criminal Revision Petition and the same be placed before appropriate bench. |
| 849 | CRLMP / 1910 / 2021 (KAPIL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/07/2021 Poppy straws recovered from dhani of petitioner-FIR registered and chargesheet filed-Present Petition under Sec. 482 CrPC against order by Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, whereby application filed by petitioner under Sec. 91 CrPC for certain call details and tower location to be taken on record was rejected-Held-Hon’ble High Court directed learned court below to summon necessary call details and tower locations, in the interest of fair trial and proper opportunity to petitioner to defend his case |
| 850 | CRLR / 494 / 2021 (LOKESH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/07/2021 Grant of bail to a CICL-Preliminary objection by prosecutor that revision cannot be decided in absence of notice to complainant-Held-There is no legislative mandate under the JJ Act that the victim should be notified before hearing bail application of a child in conflict with law, be it before the Juvenile Justice Board, Appellate Court or before the High Court exercising the revisional powers under Section 102 of the JJ Act-Revision allowed-Petitioner ordered to be released on bail. |
| 851 | CRLR / 494 / 2021 (LOKESH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/07/2021 abcd |
| 852 | CRLR / 494 / 2021 (LOKESH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/07/2021 Grant of bail to a CICL-Preliminary objection by prosecutor that revision cannot be decided in absence of notice to complainant-Held-There is no legislative mandate under the JJ Act that the victim should be notified before hearing bail application of a child in conflict with law, be it before the Juvenile Justice Board, Appellate Court or before the High Court exercising the revisional powers under Section 102 of the JJ Act-Revision allowed-Petitioner ordered to be released on bail. |
| 853 | CRLR / 494 / 2021 (LOKESH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/07/2021 Grant of bail to a CICL-Preliminary objection by prosecutor that revision cannot be decided in absence of notice to complainant-Held-There is no legislative mandate under the JJ Act that the victim should be notified before hearing bail application of a child in conflict with law, be it before the Juvenile Justice Board, Appellate Court or before the High Court exercising the revisional powers under Section 102 of the JJ Act-Revision allowed-Petitioner ordered to be released on bail. |
| 854 | CRLMB / 6821 / 2021 (GAGANDEEP @ GOLDY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/06/2021 Interim bail application was preferred on the ground that petitioner’s mother is suffering from cancer and chemotherapy session is going on. Held: On perusal of documents, court was inclined to grant bail for 2 months. High Court invoked power under Section 482 CrPC. and directed all the learned trial courts in the state to give necessary details while allowing or rejecting the interim/temporary bail application(s) of any accused person. Even the relevant parameters were also laid down. |
| 855 | CW / 6896 / 2021 (DEVI LAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/05/2021 Licence of composite liquor shop granted to the respondent was challenged as the offer letter was issued to the latter even after formal order of black listing had been passed. Held: Perusal of clause (v) of Rule 74 of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 makes it crystal clear that once a successful bidder has failed to deposit the amount within time allowed, not only his security amount would be forfeited, even he would be disentitled to hold any license. Petition allowed. |
| 856 | CW / 6261 / 2021 (RISHA LODHA VS THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/05/2021 ICAI action of cancelling CA result on ground of unfair means was assailed. The petitioner had written e-mails to conduct online CA exams in pandemic era. Held-The initiation of proceedings, its manner and culmination of it in cancellation of petitioner’s result were without jurisdiction, contrary to law and against natural justice. The e-mails had no nexus with examination hall hence the disciplinary proceedings were void. Petition allowed. Cost of Rs.20,000/-.on respondents. |
| 857 | EP / 6 / 2019 (PANKAJ CHOUDHARY VS KAILASH CHOUDHARY) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/04/2021 Rejection of nomination of petitioner by the Returning Officer-Issue-(1) Whether such rejection of nomination was improper; and (2) Whether this petition was liable to be rejected on account of admitted non-compliance of Section 33(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1951-Held-In view of Section 33(3) of the Act, for lack of requisite certificate issued by the ECI, the petitioner was disqualified to contest the election and, therefore, his nomination was rejected-Petition dismissed. |
| 858 | CW / 8137 / 2020 (SHYAM KUMAR VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/04/2021 Petitioner questioned legality of notification dated 25.06.2015 issued by State Government in exercise of power conferred under Clause (viii) of Section 3 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, whereby all premises belonging to a religious trust have been exempted from applicability of Chapter II and III of Act of 2001-Held-It cannot be inferred from the material on record, that exemption has been granted by State Government to respondent trust in a perfunctory manner-Petition dismissed in limine. |
| 859 | CW / 5108 / 2020 (BALU RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/04/2021 A certain land held by petitioner, pursuant to execution of a registered sale deed in dispute as being Johad, or restricted in nature-Held-Once the State has found the land in question to be belonging to Johad Paytan, which is a prohibited land, no allotment of the same can be made-And, no limitation can defeat the status of prohibited land being allotted-The record, as entered earlier, does not create any right in favour of petitioner, because it was wrongly entered-Petition dismissed. |
| 860 | CW / 3440 / 2021 (MOHD. AATIF @ PAPPU VS VALEED AHMED) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/03/2021 Premise given on rent by Respondents 1 and 2 to Respondent 3-Respondent No. 3 started a business in partnership with present petitioner in the said rented premises-Order passed by Rent Tribunal without impleading the petitioner as a necessary party-Held-A decree against the tenant would bind the sub-lessee as well-Also, Sub-lessee was not a necessary party and non-joinder of sub-lessee would not make a decree passed by the competent court as wrong in the eyes of law. |
| 861 | CW / 4120 / 2020 (PRAKASH VS SHRI RAJ KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2021 Petitioners contended that since they have stepped into the shoes of decree holder, they may be impleaded as party to contest application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC-Held-Section 146 of CPC has to be given the widest connotation-Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has to be allowed although this shall not permit petitioners at that stage to expand the dimension of adjudication beyond the scope of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC-Petition allowed. |
| 862 | CRLMP / 383 / 2020 (DEVILAL JYANI VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/03/2021 Petition seeking direction for registration of an FIR for offences under Sections 166-A and 120-B of IPC against a certain police officer and three private persons-Held-Prima facie ingredients of offence under Section 166-A IPC not made out-Petitioner has no locus standi in the case and has filed a complaint before the court of learned ADJ purely for oblique motives and to wreak vengeance-Complaint quashed-Petition dismissed and cost imposed on the petitioner. |
| 863 | CRLA / 862 / 2011 (NARENDRA KUMAR @ KALLU AND ANR. VS STATE ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/03/2021 Appeal against conviction of appellants under 302/120B IPC and 364/120B IPC-Contention that testimony of approver is not of sterling worth as he was inimical to accused persons-Issue regarding right to cross-examine an approver-Held-There is no requirement of law that defence must be allowed to cross-examine approver when his statement is recorded at pre-committal stage-Mandatory requirements of Section 306 CrPC followed-Order of Trial court upheld-Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit. |
| 864 | CMA / 250 / 2019 (RATHI STEEL AND POWER LIMITED VS SHRI RAM LIME PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/03/2021 Appeal against order whereby application filed under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been rejected-Held-Only when court is certain that no valid arbitration agreement exists or the dispute/subject matter are not arbitrable, the application under Section 8 would be rejected-Prima facie examination is not full review but a primary first review to weed out manifestly and ex-facie non-existent and invalid arbitration agreements and non-arbitrable disputes-Appeal allowed. |
| 865 | SAW / 20 / 2020 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DINESH SINGH BITHU) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/03/2021 Respondent was denied appointment after selection to the post of Constable, as he was involved in a criminal case and his acquittal in that case was not considered honorable acquittal-Appeal against order by Single Judge wherein appellants were directed to accord appointment to respondent-Held-If a person is acquitted of charges for want of evidence; it would not necessarily lead to an inference that acquittal of the person by the court of competent jurisdiction is not honorable-Appeal dismissed |
| 866 | CRLRF / 1 / 2020 (NATHU RAM VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/02/2021 What would be the nature of an offence (whether cognizable or non-cognizable) punishable by imprisonment which “may extend to three years”-Held-For determination of nature of offence, maximum punishment that may be awarded for that particular offence is relevant and not minimum sentence-Offences under laws other than IPC punishable with imprisonment which “may extend to three years” shall fall within classification II under Part II of First Schedule CrPC and shall be cognizable and non-bailable. |
| 867 | SAW / 1499 / 2019 (PRADEEP JANGIR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/02/2021 Eligibility for recruitment to post of Teacher Gr.III (Level II) (English) was graduation or equivalent qualification with English as optional subject-Appellants did not have English as an optional subject in their graduation-However, they possessed Post Graduation in English-Held-A candidate must possess the requisite qualification statutorily prescribed and possession of higher qualification would not necessarily make a candidate eligible for recruitment to the post concerned-Appeal dismissed. |
| 868 | SAW / 219 / 2020 (SUREKHA RANA VS RAJASTHAN SUBORDINATE AND MINISTERIAL SERVICE SELECTION BOARD,) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/02/2021 Eligibility for recruitment to PTI Gr.III was a degree of B.P.Ed., C.P.Ed. or D.P.Ed-Appellant did not have prescribed qualifications but had M.P.Ed.-Appellant initially selected but not appointed for lack of prescribed qualification-Held-Court cannot permit inclusion of any qualification other than the eligibility qualification prescribed under statutory rules-Assumption that M.P.Ed. being a higher qualification, fulfills the requirement of lower qualification, is incorrect-Appeal dismissed. |
| 869 | CRLMB / 95 / 2021 (KAYUM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/01/2021 Bail application by petitioners who are in custody in connection with offences under NDPS Act and Arms Act-Held-Before granting bail to an accused arrested in connection with recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, Court has to record findings mandated by Section 37 of NDPS Act which is a sine-qua-non for grant of bail-Here, no reasons are on record of the case which can persuade the Court to record the mandatory finding as per Section 37(b)(ii) of NDPS Act-Bail application dismissed. |
| 870 | CRLMB / 861 / 2021 (KHET SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/01/2021 Bail application of co-accused was accepted by High Court however, inspite of High Court’s order, bail application of other accused was rejected by Subordinate Court. Held-It is expected from all Subordinate Courts that where similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by High Court and bail application of other accused comes up for consideration, High Court’s order shall be referred to while deciding such bail application and shall be followed unless distinguishable features exist. |
| 871 | SOSA / 732 / 2020 (DINESH KUMAR VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/01/2021 What is the reasoning behind the practice of suspending sentence of a convict, once he has served half of the sentence or 5 years imprisonment? Held- Convict cannot claim suspension of sentence as a matter of right. Appellate Court can take into consideration the criminal antecedents, the over-all behavior while in incarceration; whether conviction is under any special statute whereby power to grant bail is circumscribed etc. These principles are broad guidelines and not a straitjacket formula. |
| 872 | CRLW / 506 / 2020 (NARENDRA SINGH @ MUKESH @ BHURA VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/01/2021 Prayer seeking directions for transfer to Open Air Camp against the decision of Prisoners Open Air Camp Advisory Committee. Held-Open Air Camp falls within definition of ‘prison’ and even after transfer of a prisoner to Open Air Camp, his detention continues and, the reasoning adopted by the Committee that since petitioner has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for remaining period of natural life, he cannot be transferred to Open Air Camp, does not appear to be justified. Petition allowed. |
| 873 | CMA / 893 / 2020 (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS SABO) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/01/2021 Submission that driver of offending vehicle was not holding a “perfect driving license”, since special conditions applicable for driving vehicles carrying hazardous substances were not met, thus, insurance company is not liable to pay damages. Held-Table-III under Rule 137 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules,1989, does not prescribe “Diesel” as hazardous goods. “Perfect driving license” means a valid driving license issued by competent authority for driving a heavy motor vehicle.Appeal dismissed. |
| 874 | CRLW / 382 / 2020 (SUBHASH KHICHAD VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/01/2021 Petitioner seeking a direction for release on first parole of 20 days. Previously, when the petitioner was released on emergent parole, he went absconding-Held-For being released on parole, the primary requirement is that the convict must have shown good conduct. Abscondance from parole, by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be good conduct. Grant of parole cannot be claimed by prisoners as a matter of right. Petitioner not entitled for regular parole. Petition dismissed. |
| 875 | CW / 8467 / 2019 (SHILPA BEN GARASIYA (ROJAD) VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2021 Petitioner seeking a direction for release on first parole of 20 days. Previously, when the petitioner was released on emergent parole, he went absconding-Held-For being released on parole, the primary requirement is that the convict must have shown good conduct. Abscondance from parole, by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be good conduct. Grant of parole cannot be claimed by prisoners as a matter of right. Petitioner not entitled for regular parole. Petition dismissed. |
| 876 | CW / 8467 / 2019 (SHILPA BEN GARASIYA (ROJAD) VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2021 Whether a female candidate, after marrying a person of TSP-ST, migrates to the State of Rajasthan, can claim caste based reservation also, while taking TSP reservation benefits in terms of the notification dated 21.10.2019 issued by the Governor of Rajasthan? Held-Governor has power to legislate in the field of Scheduled area only. For declaring a caste to be SC/ST in relation to that State or Union territory, Presidential Order issued under Article 341,342 is the final word. Petition dismissed. |
| 877 | CRLMB / 14379 / 2020 (PANKAJ DAMOR VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/12/2020 Petitioner granted pardon by competent court under Section 306 CrPC and made an Approver-Whether inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to grant bail to an approver-Relying on Noor Taki @ Mammu v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1987 Raj. 52-Held-According to Section 306(4)(b) CrPC, approver should be detained in custody till termination of trial, at the same time, in exceptional and reasonable cases, High Court has power under Section 482 CrPC, to enlarge him on bail-Bail granted. |
| 878 | CRLMB / 14546 / 2020 (ABID VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/12/2020 Petitioner arrested in connection with offences punishable under IPC, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act. Notice to victim/complainant not served-Held-Section 15-A(3) of SC/ST Act is a mandatory provision of law requiring the victim or his/her representative to be given timely notice in all court proceedings including a bail proceeding. Not adding the respondent would tantamount to attracting dismissal of bail application on account of non-joinder of necessary party-Time granted to array victim as party. |
| 879 | CW / 4384 / 2020 (SMT. NEERAJ VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/12/2020 Whether a candidate, who has given birth to a child prior to joining the Government service, is entitled for maternity leave under Rule 103 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951? Held-A female Government servant is entitled to avail maternity leave, if she joins within the period of confinement, i.e. 15 days before to three months after the child birth, regardless of the fact that the child was born prior to joining or before issuance of appointment order. Petition allowed. |
| 880 | CRLMB / 12956 / 2020 (DINESH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/12/2020 Whether all offences under Arms Act,1959(Act) by virtue of Section 37 of the Act r/w Section 436 CrPC are bailable? Held-Section 37 of Act does not deal with bail-As per Schedule I Part II CrPC, for an offence to be bailable, the offence has to be non-cognizable offence, and punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, but as per Section 38 of the Act every offence under the Act is cognizable, therefore all offences under the Act are non-bailable offences-Bail application dismissed. |
| 881 | CRLMB / 13513 / 2020 (JUGAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/11/2020 Petitioner arrested for offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC-Application seeking bail as there exists no criminal antecedent of petitioner-Held-Bail application allowed with the direction that though antecedent alone is not a ground of rejecting or accepting a bail-However, all trial courts shall, while allowing or disallowing any regular or anticipatory bail application, give details of antecedents, if any, and in case of none being there, record the same. |
| 882 | CRLAD / 65 / 2019 (SALIM VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/11/2020 Specific charge under Section 370(4) IPC was not framed against the accused-appellant and further, even after recording statement of victim on oath regarding the said offence, charge was not amended, but, appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 370(4) IPC and has been awarded life imprisonment on that count-Held-An accused facing trial cannot be convicted and sentenced for a graver offence, of which no charge has been framed against him-Matter remanded back to trial court. |
| 883 | CW / 9572 / 2020 (DEVI LAL BOCHLYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/11/2020 Posting order (based on recommendation of elected representative) of petitioner, was cancelled and subsequent order whereby, petitioner has been transferred, challenged as arbitrary-Held-Transfer orders must be issued by Administrative Head after application of mind, without being influenced by recommendations made by elected representatives-Writ petition dismissed as petitioner himself had adopted same means, which he is seeking to question and has been beneficiary of a similar recommendation. |
| 884 | CRLA / 895 / 2014 (OGAD SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/10/2020 Appeal by accused against conviction under Section 302 IPC for murdering his own daughter-Held-Failure by appellant to offer any explanation regarding murder of his daughter in his house and subsequent carrying of her severed head and blood stained sword to police outpost leads to a presumption regarding his culpability for the offence-Statement by accused to police, divulging motive for murder of his daughter was not confessional in nature and therefore, admissible in evidence-Appeal rejected. |
| 885 | SAW / 171 / 2020 (PUSHKARLAL VS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MAHARANA PRATAP SMARAK, UDAIPUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/09/2020 Whether a Pujari falls within the definition of ‘workman’ as services of one pujari was terminated without complying with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act-Held-For determination as to whether an employee falls within the definition of ‘workman’ or not, test is what is the main work assigned to him-Puja by Pujari is an application of his knowledge which cannot be considered to be work specified in Section 2(s) of Act of 1947, thus, a Pujari is not a workman-Appeal dismissed in limine. |
| 886 | CRLW / 94 / 2020 (SHARAWAN MANJI VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/08/2020 Writ petition by Petitioner assailing the recommendation of the State Level Parole Advisory Committee rejecting his request for a permanent parole- The High Court relying on Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2017 SC 4986, held that mere nature of the offence committed by the convict should not be a factor to deny parole outrightly- Matter remanded back to the State Level Parole Committee for reconsideration- Writ Petition allowed. |
| 887 | CRLAD / 325 / 2019 (JASRAJ VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2020 Appellant convicted and sentenced for offences under Sec-498-A, 304-B, 201 of IPC-Application for suspension of sentences and appeal against judgment of lower court-High Court relying on Jasvinder Saini v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) AIR 2014 SC 841 held that-Presiding officer failed to frame a specific charge for offence under Section 302 IPC which was essential-Appeal allowed-Judgment of conviction by lower court set aside and matter remitted back to trial court for fresh decision. |
| 888 | CW / 2747 / 2020 (MAHESH JOSHI VS RAMESH PAREKH) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/08/2020 Argument-Power of Attorney based on which proceedings were instituted, neither registered nor bears requisite stamp duty and same is inadmissible in evidence. Held- For Power of Attorney to be compulsorily registrable, it must be irrevocable. Also, any instrument executed out of State relating to any property situated in the State is chargeable to stamp duty when the same is received in the State. Deficient stamp duty and penalty determined by High Court and respondent directed to pay the same. |
| 889 | ARBAP / 10 / 2020 (BARMINCO INDIAN UNDERGROUND MINING SERVICES LLP VS HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/07/2020 What is an International Commercial Arbitration? Held- An arbitration agreement can result in foreign award covered by Part-II, yet the arbitration can be arbitration other than International Commercial Arbitration. The definition given in Section 2(1) of Act of 1996 applies to whole of the Act and is not confined to Part-I. If arbitration is not an International Commercial Arbitration, the expression ‘Court’ would mean Principal Civil Court or the High Court having original civil jurisdiction. |
| 890 | CRLR / 355 / 2020 (PANKAJ VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/05/2020 Juvenile tried for offence u/s. 392/34 of IPC- praying for release on bail- As per JJ Act, Section 12-Held, Board is not required to mechanically release a juvenile or grant him bail as a matter of course-Further, failure in filing chargesheet on time-default bail an indefeasible right of an accused-Held, In Supreme Court’s order regarding extension of period of limitation during lockdown no advantage has been provided to any investigating or prosecuting agency- Revision Petition allowed. |
| 891 | CRLW / 15 / 2020 (RAKESH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/05/2020 Rule 9 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules,1958-Held,the petitioner while availing the first parole indulged in commission of offence and thus, was not entitled to be released on second and third parole or to be considered for release on permanent parole in terms of Rule 9-As per Rule 13, parole cannot be claimed as a matter of right-It cannot be inferred from Rule 9 that a prisoner who has served substantive sentence of 14 years without remission, is entitled for permanent parole. |
| 892 | CW / 6082 / 2019 (LYCON MICRONS LLP VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2020 Mines, Minerals and Mining leases-Challenge to legality of a notification dated 10.03.19 issued by the Government of Rajasthan-Vires of Rule 82 of Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 questioned- Further, challenge to restriction on interstate movement of certain minerals-Impugned notification declared unconstitutional and quashed-Rule 82 of 2017 Rules upheld with declaration that State Government is not empowered to put restrictions on transportation of minerals outside the state. |
| 893 | CW / 15944 / 2019 (JAGDISH KUMAR CHOUDHARY VS RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2020 Writ Petition-Challenge to result of an examination conducted by RPSC for recruitment of Headmasters in Secondary Education-Challenge to certain questions and answers finalized by a Committee of Experts-Candidate cannot use writ jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise over experts opinion-Courts need to be satisfied that brief reasons are provided for a particular view and examine if the experts have relied on relevant materials and not mere textbooks-Expectations from expert committee laid down. |
| 894 | CW / 1325 / 2020 (REKHA MEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/02/2020 Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules,1965-Rules 35 and 36 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules,2011-Rejection of petitioner candidature, consequent to physical challenge-denial of fair opportunity in public employment-appointment to remain subject to production of certificate of fitness or upon objective satisfaction that the incumbent is capable of performing the functions/duties as required. |
| 895 | CW / 1693 / 2020 (VIRENDER SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/02/2020 Test |
| 896 | CW / 1693 / 2020 (VIRENDER SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/02/2020 Article 324 of Constitution and Section 101 of Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 4 of 1994 Rules; Order by Government in redrawing the lottery and reservation for elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions. Action of Election Commission in deferring polls not arbitrary. Effect to reservation carried out in consonance with the provisions of Section 16 of Act of 1994, and Rule 7 of 1994 Rules. Nomination being accepted by Returning Officer not sufficient to claim oneself as elected unopposed. |
| 897 | SAW / 53 / 2020 (GOPALRAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/01/2020 Rule 9 (ia) and 412 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957- Rule 412 of the 1957 Rules-District Collector responsible for all administrative matters pertaining to Patwaris and Rule 9 (ia) empowers him to transfer a Patwari anywhere within the District. The proviso to Rule 9 (ia) in no manner could be construed to restrict the power conferred upon the District Collector under the main provision of Rule 9 (ia). |
| 898 | CMA / 151 / 2020 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS M/S HARI OM BUILDERS) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/01/2020 Order VII, Rule 2A CPC- No consequence provided in amended Code for non-compliance of Order VII, Rule 2A CPC- Also, Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978 deals with power of Court to award interest. |
| 899 | CW / 14964 / 2019 (KIRAN KUMARI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/01/2020 Rule 8 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011- These Rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and they have statutory force. Any order or circular, may it be passed by the Chief Secretary, cannot alter, obliterate or override the provisions contained in the 2011 Rules. |
| 900 | CW / 11505 / 2019 (MOHD. ASALAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/01/2020 Rajasthan Sanskrit Education State and Subordinate Service (School Branch) Rules,2015-Rule 26 of 2015 Rules can be resorted to if the selection process was in accordance with Rule 25 of 2015 Rules which mandated the holding of a written examination. As per the selection process advertised it was required of the respondents to publish a consolidated category wise merit list of all the eligible candidates and then invite them for documents verification, on the basis of their respective merit. |
| 901 | CRLA / 921 / 2016 (SHYAM SUNDER @ SUNDARIYA VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/12/2019 Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3/25 of Arms Act; procedure under Section 273 CrPC not complied with-Contradictions in statements of witnesses-material witness withheld-Adverse inference drawn. Prosecution did not get the accused identified-Mandatory obligation under Section 273 Cr.P.C -Evidence of witnesses recorded in absence of the accused vitiated. Prosecution concealed nature of objections pointed by the FSL-FSL reports appear to be tainted and cannot be read in evidence. |
| 902 | CW / 4789 / 2018 (HIMMAT SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN and ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2018 Petitioner’s challenging evaluation of answer scripts, consequential determination of merit by RPSC, pertaining to recruitment process initiated by RPSC for Senior Teachers post. Held; selection process violated Art. 14,16 of Constitution of India, RPSC should ensure greater transparency and proper evaluation of answer scripts to minimize errors. Issued directions to constitute an expert committee afresh to reexamine impugned questions. Petition disposed. |