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.
2
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.
3
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.
4
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.
5
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.
1
CR / 70 / 2020 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS MAHARAJA SAWAI MANSINGH SECOND MUSEUM TRUST) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/04/2025 Petitioner through revision petition challenged the dismissal of application u/order 7 rule 11 of CPC. HELD- Under Article 363 of constitution dispute arising out of any specific treaty/covenant/agreement or other legal document executed prior to enforcement of Indian constitution can’t be resolved by any court/ tribunal/ and barred by law. Applications u/order 7 rule 11 CPC allowed and suit filed by respondent, rejected
2
CW / 16980 / 2017 (MANAGING COMMITTEE D A V UCHH VS NIRANJAN BAGRI AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2025 Whether the services of any contractual or fixed-term employee can be terminated without following the provisions contained u/s18 (iii) of the Act of 1989? &Whether appeal filed against such termination order is maintainable u/s19 of the Act of 1989?HELD- The termination of any employee, whether contractual or fixed-term, must comply with Sec 18(iii) of the Act, requiring 6 months' notice or 6 months' salary. Appeals against such termination are maintainable u/s 19. Dismissed
3
CW / 323 / 2021 (KAMAL KUMAR BAKSHI S/O SHRI MADAN LAL CHIBBAR VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/04/2025 Whether the CAT, having declined to admit the Original Application on the ground of limitation, acted within its jurisdiction in proceeding to adjudicate the matter on the merits? HELD- The tribunal erred in adjudicating the merits without first addressing the limitation issue. Limitations must be determined before the merits of a case. As the delay was not condoned, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide on the merits. The petition is allowed and remitted for fresh consideration.
4
CW / 17710 / 2024 (VED PRAKASH VYAS S/O SHRI KAILASHCHAND VYAS VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/03/2025 Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment in North Western Railway despite being recommended for Western Central Railways and failing to join? HELD- Provisionally shortlisting the petitioner on the basis of a computer-based test created no vested right for appointment. The petitioner was recommended for WCR, but failed to join despite seeking an extension. The law grants the employer discretion on filling vacancies. The petition was dismissed.
5
CW / 5692 / 2002 (DURGA LAL VERMA VS DISTRICT COLLECTOR TONK) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/03/2025 Petitioner challenged the issuance of a second charge sheet for the same charges for which he was acquitted previously. HELD- Issuing a second charge sheet on the same set of facts is impermissible as the same is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and amounts to double jeopardy. Writ petition allowed. Second charge sheet quashed.
