Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 292 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 330 NOMINAL INDEX Darogi & Ors. v Chetram & Ors; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 292 M/s Subhash Chand Mukesh Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 Live Law (Raj) 293 Bank of Baroda v U.N Automobiles Pvt Ltd.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 294 Kanchan Patil (Mirasi) Samaj v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 295 Smt. Kamla Khinchi...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 292 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 330
NOMINAL INDEX
Darogi & Ors. v Chetram & Ors; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 292
M/s Subhash Chand Mukesh Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 Live Law (Raj) 293
Bank of Baroda v U.N Automobiles Pvt Ltd.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 294
Kanchan Patil (Mirasi) Samaj v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 295
Smt. Kamla Khinchi v Smt. Kamla & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 296
Ashok Kumar & Anr. v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
Kishan Lal Sharma & Ors. v Laxmi India Fineleasecap Pvt Ltd; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 298
X v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 299
State of Rajasthan v Mohanlal Alias Sukhram; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 300
Meetu Pareek & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 301
Dr. Varsha Sharma v Joint Director & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 302
Sitaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 303
Sunita Devi v Sumit Bishnoi, and other connected petition; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 304
Aayush Narania v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 305
Smt. Pooja v Mahendra Singh & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 306
Master Daivik Rangwani v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 307
IDP Education Indian Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors. and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 308
Padam Kumar Jain v Bank of Maharashtra; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 309
Shaitan Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 310
Mohammad Salim v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 311
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Ali Taqi & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 312
M/s Sahil Steels v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 313
Sangam Chaudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 314
Sabuddin & Ors. v Giriraj; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 315
LBS Convent School v CBSE and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 316
Pushkar Naraian Sharma v Union of India & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 317
Rajmal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 318
Akash v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 319
Shwetabh Singhal v M/s Jk and Sons & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 320
Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills v. Union Of India; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 321
Divya Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 322
Narendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 323
Smt. Mishri Devi v Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department Pension Bhawan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 324
Abhishek Shah v Rajasthan Staff Selection Board & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2025 Live Law (Raj) 325
Smt. Imarti Devi & Ors. v Nattha Ram & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 326
Girdhar Gopal v Sanwarmal Sharma & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 327
Ramswaroop Bhati v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 328
Mala Ram & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 329
Bank of India v Paras Talkies & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 330
Vyas Dental College and Hospital v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Kuldeep Singh v State of Rajasthan
Bhagirath Singh Chauhan v Bar Council of India
Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan and other connected appeals
Shah Rukh Khan v/s The State Of Rajasthan and anr. and Batch
Vivek Firoda v Rajasthan High Court through its Registrar General and Anr.
Ashok Kumar Bhargava v Mahaveer Ranka
Priyansha Gupta v Union of India
Smt. Urmila Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan
Himanshu v State of Rajasthan
Tax Bar Association, Bhilwara v UOI & Anr.
Puran Chander Sen v. The State of Rajasthan and Others
Orders/Judgments of the Month
Title: Darogi & Ors. v Chetram & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 292
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a Trial Court order wherein despite framing issues in the matter, no categorical issue-wise findings were recorded, and the judgment was given by recording a consolidated finding.
While underscoring the significance of the steps of framing of issues and terming the matter as “quite shocking and surprising”, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the judgment did not stand the judicial scrutiny as it was in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Order XX Rule 5 and Order XIV Rule 2, CPC.
Order XX, Rule 5, CPC and Order XIV, Rule 2, CPC, provides that the Court is to pronounce its decision on each issue.
Title: M/s Subhash Chand Mukesh Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 Live Law (Raj) 293
The Rajasthan High Court held that identification and protection of disputed water bodies required technical expert evaluation underscoring that mere revenue record entries were insufficient wherein ground realities are to be verified by the competent expert authority.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a matter wherein petitioner's right of way to his allotted mining area was rejected by the State on the ground that the land in question was a pasture as well as a water body.
Observing that these were disputed facts which the court cannot determine under Article 226 jurisdiction of the Constitution, the high court directed the State to constitute an Expert Committee to ascertain these questions.
"Identification and protection of disputed water bodies require technical expert evaluation. Mere revenue record entries are not sufficient and the ground conditions/realities must be verified by the competent Expert Authority," the court said.
Title: Bank of Baroda v U.N Automobiles Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 294
The Rajasthan High Court held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”) had no jurisdiction to rewrite/modify the terms and conditions of the One-time Settlement (“OTS”)/Settlement, in relation to an application filed after disposal of the matter based on a Consent Recovery Certificate.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition against the order of the DRT wherein an application filed by the respondent seeking more time to repay the amount was allowed, after the matter under SARFAESI Act was already disposed of by the DRT by passing a Consent Recovery Certificate based on OTS reached between the Parties.
While ruling that a post-disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, the Court held that DRT became functus officio after passing the Consent Recovery and the Amended Consent Recovery, and nothing remained to be decided by it on the same subject matter. Hence, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's application contrary to the OTS.
Title: Kanchan Patil (Mirasi) Samaj v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 295
The Rajasthan High Court has said that "dignity of an individual" after death is hampered due to demarcation of cremation places based on "caste" or other grounds, remarking that it was high time that the State formulated a uniform policy equally applicable to all citizens for a public place to perform post-death rituals.
While hearing a petition filed by the Kanchan Patil (Mirasi) Samaj on not being allowed to use a public land by State for conducting last rites, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta, held that despite fraternity being one of the foundational principles of the nation, the present case was a stark reminder of how far the social reality was from this constitutional vision.
“…public lands earmarked for cremation or burial cannot be segregated or monopolized by any community. Any such practice of exclusion or reservation of common land for the benefit of a particular caste, creed, or community is antithetical to the constitutional vision of equality, fraternity, and dignity…this Court is of the firm opinion that discrimination, which is proscribed under the Constitution of India, cannot be permitted to exist in any form, and certainly cannot be allowed to extend beyond death.”
Title: Smt. Kamla Khinchi v Smt. Kamla & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 296
The Rajasthan High Court has said that after the death of an individual, the execution of their power of attorney (POA) also comes to an end automatically, and the POA holder cannot transfer the share of the deceased assignor post their death based on the POA.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed against the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue that had upheld the order of the Tehsildar.
Title: Ashok Kumar & Anr. v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
The Rajasthan High Court upheld termination of the petitioner on allegations of submitting forged documents during appointment process, despite the petitioner being acquitted in a criminal case of forgery, fabrication and cheating instituted by the concerned department.
Justice Anand Sharma said that just because the petitioner was acquitted, would not give rise to the presumption that such acquittal confers eligibility on the petitioner to hold the concerned post.
"Even otherwise, merely the fact that the petitioners have been acquitted from the charge of forgery, fabrication and cheating, would not give rise to any presumption that such acquittal has conferred the requisite qualification and eligibility upon the petitioners to hold the post of Junior Accountant in the office of the respondents"
The Court also took into account the fact that petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case was based on benefit of doubt, while the State had put in place sufficient documents on what all enquiry was conducted by them to verify the qualification documents, and the letters from the Magadh University made it clear that the petitioner had forged the certificates.
Title: Kishan Lal Sharma & Ors. v Laxmi India Fineleasecap Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 298
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”) where a Securitisation Application (“SA”) submitted by the petitioner was rejected, after being initially entertained, on the ground that not all the borrowers had signed the SA. The court opined that it was not mandatory for all the applicants to sign the same or the supporting affidavit.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that once the petition was entertained at the threshold in 2020 and an interim order was passed, the same should have been decided on merits after being kept pending for more than 5 years, instead of being rejected on such technical counts.
Title: X v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 299
Rajasthan High Court held that while undertaking an enquiry in relation to claim of juvenility of an accused, the standard need not be like a trial where the juvenility had to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, rather if two views are possible, the Court should lean towards holding in favour of the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah further clarified that if the documentary evidence mentioned in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”) were placed on record, they were to be considered relevant unless those were shown to be fabricated or manipulated.
“…if so called documents are available, then there is no requirement for the Court, the board or the committee to go for medical test for age determination. The question is thus answered accordingly.”
Title: State of Rajasthan v Mohanlal Alias Sukhram
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 300
The Rajasthan High Court deprecated the conduct of the State which had filed a plea in 2025 seeking stay on execution of compensation in a fatal accident case, wherein the concerned department had been served in 2017, but only now objected to the proceedings.
Justice Sameer Jain said that despite being served in 2017 the State "remained silent", and had now filed a plea claiming that the Secretary, Medical and Health Department was "wrongfully impleaded as a party" instead of Department of Medical Education/RUHS or RSRTC.
Imposing the condition for deposit of Rs 1 lakh on the State, the court issued notice on the plea and said that the amount shall be recovered from the concerned Secretary or responsible officer-in-charge (either from salary or pension if retired).
Title: Meetu Pareek & Anr. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 301
The Rajasthan High Court expressed anguish and pain over two women who were kept in 43-day judicial custody despite being charged in bailable offences, after their bail pleas were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate and ADJ in a casual and mechanical manner who failed to exercise discretion in a right way.
Expressing regret, Justice Anil Kumar Upman directed the DGP to seek an "explanation/clarification" from the concerned investigating officer for making arrest of the petitioners in a case of a bailable nature and take further action accordingly, and also directed the Registrar to bring the matter to the notice of the concerned Guardian Judge.
The court had earlier granted bail to the women petitioners and had at that time sought an explanation was sought from the Judicial Magistrate who extended police or judicial remand of the petitioners and dismissed the bail plea as well as from the ADJ who had also dismissed the bail pleas. Perusing the explanation the court said that the same was unsatisfactory.
Title: Dr. Varsha Sharma v Joint Director & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 302
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a candidate who despite completing the 2-year course of DNB Obstetrics and Gynaecology and after obtaining certificate of training completion from the hospital in 2021, was denied Provisional Pass Certificate, Attempt Certificate and final degree of DNB by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences.
While rejecting the argument by the NBE that the training period of the petitioner was not completed owing to her maternity leave, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that once the hospital had issued the certificate of training completion, there was no reason for the NBE to withhold the documents.
Title: Sitaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 303
The Rajasthan High Court held that merely because the allegation of rape was alleged by the prosecutrix for the first time during the statements under Section 164 CrPC, that in itself could not be a reason to discard the same at the stage of framing of charges.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah was hearing a petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge that had framed charges against the petitioner of trespassing, wrongful restraint, causing hurt, outraging woman's modesty as well as rape under IPC.
“The Courts have to ensure that a balance is drawn between the right of accused to get a fair trial and he be not prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence but at the same time it is to ensure that the guilty does not get away from the clutches of law and equal justice is granted to the victims and to the society at large.”
Title: Sunita Devi v Sumit Bishnoi, and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 304
While hearing a petition for enhancement of maintenance, Rajasthan High Court took into account the earning capacity of the respondent-husband, and observed that an able-bodied husband was presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife, and could not take the stand that he was not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family.
“Thus, the capacity of the respondent to earn and his actual earning being Rs.10,000/- (while working as a Conductor) and Rs.10,000/- further from joint agricultural property, cannot be disputed. An able-bodied husband must further be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and he cannot take the stand that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. This fact, coupled with the respondent's own admission that the petitioner was not having any income or any property whatsoever, is a relevant consideration while determining the maintenance to be paid.”
Title: Aayush Narania v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 305
Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed against cancellation of license of meat shops established within 50 meters of places of worship in accordance with Clause 4 of the SOP dated March 22, 2021, issued under Section 269 read with Section 340 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (“the Act”).
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand denied the argument put forth by the petitioner of the temple being a private property of few shopkeepers, and opined that every temple was a public property unless proved otherwise, and since the temple in question was situated in an open area, accessible to all, it was construed as a public temple.
Title: Smt. Pooja v Mahendra Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 306
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a decree passed by a competent court cannot be permitted to remain a "mere paper decree, ornamental in nature", or reduced to the "status of a redundant document devoid of efficacy".
Justice Farjand Ali in his order said:
“A decree is not intended to be a showpiece hanging on the wall of litigation; rather, it must be translated into reality so as to secure to the successful litigant the full measure of relief envisaged by the decree itself. Unless the decree-holder secures the substantive benefit contemplated under the judgment and decree, the very exercise of adjudication stands frustrated.”
Title: Master Daivik Rangwani v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 307
While granting relief to a minor whose application for admission in a private school under the Right to Education Act, 2009 was rejected, the Rajasthan High Court held that a fundamental right under Article 21-A could not be tossed and curtailed merely on account on procedural ground or technicalities.
In the present matter, the application of the child was rejected on the ground that the Aadhaar card submitted for verification was not carrying the number of his residency ward.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that once the petitioner was selected for admission in the school under a lottery draw, his application could not have been rejected merely on this technical ground.
“The respondents could have asked the petitioner to furnish a documentary proof with regard to his residential Ward, instead of rejecting his application. Such action of the respondents was quite unjustified and the same is not tenable in the eyes of law.”
Title: IDP Education Indian Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 308
While hearing a petition against the decision of Department of Revenue by a company providing services to a foreign entity, Rajasthan High Court held that for someone to be called an “intermediary”, there had be existence of 3 parties in the contract, in the absence of which, the services rendered under a bipartite agreement could not be called “intermediary”.
The division bench of Justice Mr. K.R. Shriram and Justice Maneesh Sharma was hearing the petition filed by a subsidiary of IDP Australia, a foreign entity assisting students with their enrolment with foreign universities.
“…services provided by petitioner are qua IDP Australia under specific contract or arrangement with it. Not more than two parties are involved in this arrangement, namely, petitioner and IDP Australia. For someone to be called an “Intermediary”, there needs to be existence of three parties in the contract, in the absence of which, petitioner cannot be called as “Intermediary…Petitioner has no say in the final admission process nor do they have any contractual arrangement with the Foreign Universities or the students and hence, their services are only rendered to IDP Australia under a bi partite arrangement.”
Title: Padam Kumar Jain v Bank of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 309
While hearing arguments on seizure of bank accounts on a letter from the Police, the Rajasthan Government informed the High Court that guidelines have been framed by DGP directed senior officials to instruct Investigating Agencies to remain careful while issuing letters to banks for freezing bank accounts.
The court was hearing a matter on the question 'Whether the bank account of account holder can be seized only at the instance of a letter received from the Police (Investigating Agency) without following the procedure contained under Section 102, Cr.P.C?'. In August, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand had issued a general notice inviting all the members of the bar to address the issue.
The court passed the order while granting relief to a Kachori seller who had sought a direction to Bank of Maharashtra to de-freeze his bank. The State argued that a complaint was lodged on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP), being investigated by the Investigating Agency of the State of Telangana wherein it was alleged that crores of rupees have been siphoned by unknown accused persons from the account of the complainant. It was argued that these fraudulent transactions have been found in the bank account of the petitioner account.
Appointment Based On Quashed Precedent Cannot Survive: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Shaitan Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 310
In a case where a litigant was granted appointment based on a precedent which was later quashed, the Rajasthan High Court said that once a litigant is granted relief based on a judgment which later gets set aside, he cannot seek to distinguish his case from the judgment based on which he was given appointment.
Justice Rekha Borana was hearing a petition filed against cancellation of petitioner's appointment by the State pursuant to setting aside of a decision–Yadvendra Shandilya & Ors. Vs. State (Ayurved Department) & Ors–based on which the petitioner was granted bonus marks in the recruitment process and in turn the appointment.
"...this Court is of the clear opinion that once the petitioner chose to be governed by the ratio laid down in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) and even was granted the relief in terms of the ratio laid down in the said judgment, he cannot be now at this stage plead that his case is distinguishable from that in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra). As is the settled position of law if a litigant claims to be governed by some other judgment or ratio laid down in some other judgment and he is even granted some relief in pursuance to the said relied upon judgment, he cannot subsequently turn back and plead that his case is distinguishable from the said judgment".
Title: Mohammad Salim v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 311
While rejecting petitions challenging government proposal to allot new Fair Price Shops in an area, Rajasthan High Court held that opening new FSPs was a policy decision in the prerogative of the State, and those running FSPs for about 20 years could not claim monopoly over an area.
The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal further opined that some FSPs having less than 500 ration card holders, as compared to other FSPs having more than 500 ration card holders, did not by itself made the proposal of the government discriminatory since the main purpose of FSP was not to provide business but to ensure distribution of essential commodities to marginalized citizens.
“Due to rise in population and other factors, if the State Government thought it fit to open new fair price shops, that too looking to the welfare of the public of the area in question, cannot be questioned as the same is nothing but a policy decision of the State Government.”
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Ali Taqi & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 312
The Rajasthan High Court has held that each age relaxation provided under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy And Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 were to be applied independently since no cumulative age relaxation was envisaged across different categories.
In doing so the court said that the Rules demonstrated a deliberate legislative design in carving out age relaxations category-wise. It said that once the authority, acting under constitutional mandate had consciously provided differentiated relaxations with clear limits, the court cannot exercise interpretative power and permit cumulative benefits in the absence of an express enabling provision.
Division bench of Justice (Dr.) Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Taneja summarized the legal position on cumulative age relaxation:
If the Rule itself provides for cumulative relaxation, the same must be respected.
If the Rule prescribes non-cumulative relaxation, then the Rule will prevail.
If the Rule is silent, the advertisement will govern the recruitment (as in the present case).
If both the Rule and the advertisement are silent, the default position is that relaxation will be noncumulative.
If the State intends to extend cumulative benefit, it must do so by express stipulation in the Rule or the advertisement.
Thus, if the Rule is speaking, the Rule will prevail; if silent, the advertisement will prevail. (“Rules of the game cannot be changed midway after the process of appointment to public post has already begun.”)
Title: M/s Sahil Steels v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 313
The Rajasthan High Court has questioned why the tax department can send attachment orders via email, but not assessment orders, to ward off any communication gap or confusion about the date of communication.
The Court was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Appellate Authority, State Tax, that had rejected an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107(1) of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017.
The division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Sangeeta Sharma held,
“The expression “communication to such person” used under section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 has its own significance. Passing of the order and uploading the same on the common portal, in the extant case cannot be read literally. A purposive interpretation needs to be given to a provision, when it relates to valuable statutory right of an assessee, more particularly, when upper cap of only 30 days for condonation of delay has been provided under sub-section (4) of section 107 of the Act of 2017.”
Title: Sangam Chaudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 314
The Rajasthan High Court held that observations/remarks in files by government officials while dealing with matters were merely internal correspondence between them, carrying no legal sanctity.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed against the order of suspension against the petitioner, presently serving as Pradhan, under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act. The suspension was done pursuant to a charge sheet filed against her pertaining to incident that occurred in 2017, during her tenure of Sarpanch.
“This Court finds no substance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner himself observed in the notesheet that enquiry is not required to be conducted against the petitioner since she had deposited the amount. Such an observation/remark made in the file by the Commissioner constitutes mere internal correspondence between the officials and carries no legal sanctity.”
Title: Sabuddin & Ors. v Giriraj
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 315
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ("RAA") and the Board of Revenue, in which a time barred appeal, filed after 44 years of decree, was allowed without any application for condonation of delay or any reasons justifying such delay.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that law of limitation was founded on public policy which required that there should be an end to litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the ligation was made immortal while the litigating parties i.e. the humans were mortals.
"The courts have always treated the statutes of limitation and prescription as statutes of peace and repose. They envisage that a right not exercised or the remedy not availed for a long time ceases to exist. This is one way of putting an end to a litigation by barring the remedy rather than the right with the passage of time," it said.
Title: LBS Convent School v CBSE and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 316
The Rajasthan High Court came down heavily upon the schools permitting dummy candidates by manipulating attendance registers without actual presence of these students for regular studies in Class IX to XII, so that they can attend coaching centres for NEET and JEE preparations.
Observing that menace of dummy schools is a blight on the education system Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the State and all education Boards to constitute Special Investigating Teams (SITs) for surprise inspections and said:
"The State of Rajasthan and all the Boards are directed to constitute Special Investigating Teams (SITs) to carry out sudden and random inspections of all the schools and the coaching centres and in case, the students are found absent in such schools and simultaneously, they found present in the coaching centres, during the school hours, then appropriate strict action be taken against all the stakeholders, including the schools and the coaching centres in accordance with law".
The Court also observed that it was lack of awareness among parents that was leading to the unfair and dangerous trend. It was opined that it was the right and high time that parents gave freedom to their children to choose their career path, rather than imposing their own expectations on them.
Title: Pushkar Naraian Sharma v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 317
The Rajasthan High Court set aside Central Administrative Tribunal's order (CAT) that rejected a man's plea to postpone transfer to Karnataka till March 2026, considering his daughter's Class 12th Board Examination allowing him to continue at his current place of posting till his daughter's examinations were over.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit stated that while the State and Central Government were promoting the campaign of “Beti Bachao aur Beti Padhao”, their authorities were completely immune to the requirements of girls.
Title: Rajmal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 318
The Rajasthan High Court allowed premature release of a man convicted for his mother's murder opining that adverse reports submitted by the Police Department and Social Welfare Department were merely based on presumption that since he had murdered his mother his release would threaten his other family members.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi highlighted that no adverse report was furnished by the jail authorities. The petitioner was also granted jail remission by which it could be presumed that his conduct was “good”.
The Court also took into account that the State had allowed his release on permanent parole which he could not avail due to failure to furnish sureties and personal bond.
"No adverse report has been furnished by the jail authorities and he has been granted the jail remission of 2 years and 6 months, therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is presumed to be 'good'. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no foundation for the adverse reports submitted by the Police Department and Social Welfare Department. We find that rejection of the petitioner's case is merely on the basis of presumption that since he had murdered his mother, therefore, his release will cause disturbance in the society and there will be a threat to the other family members, therefore, the same cannot be sustained"
Title: Akash v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 319
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a 19-year-old, charged with the offence of circulating sexually explicit material against the respondent-complainant and intimidating her on social media, by imposing a unique condition that the accused shall not use social media platforms for a period of 3 years in any form either in his name or any fictitious name.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain highlighted that in light of other circumstances, and considering the future of the petitioner, who was a 2nd year college student, the bail could be granted subject to certain stringent conditions to ensure that the safety and marital life of the victim were not jeopardized due to “notorious” and “whimsical” acts of the accused.
Title: Shwetabh Singhal v M/s Jk and Sons & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 320
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required to be submitted by the person who possessed the original device in which the evidence was recorded, and not the one in whose device the evidence was merely transferred from the original device.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition against the order of the Rent Tribunal that allowed the respondent's application to produce an electronic device contained in a Pen Drive and a Compact Disc.
Title: Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills v. Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 321
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed Point No. 2 of the Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022, restricting ITC claims on the inverted duty structure prior to 18.07.2022.
The bench, consisting of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Sangeeta Sharma, stated that if the impugned clarification is tested on the anvil of reasonableness, it falls foul to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the right to claim refund of Input Tax Credit of the input tax on inverted duty structure has been denied with effect from 18.07.2022 only.
No assessee can be expected to file claim of refund of the tax for the period paid upto 18.07.2022 on 18.07.2022 itself, more particularly when he can apply for refund of tax within the permissible time limit of two years. Hence, curtailment of an assessee's right to claim refund upto 18.07.2022- the date of enforceability of the notification is illegal and contrary to section 54 of the Act of 2017, added the bench.
Title: Divya Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 322
The Rajasthan High Court has held that role of a Pharmacist and a Covid Health Assistant who was engaged temporarily to perform auxiliary duties like distribution of medicines, are distinct and could not be treated as interchangeable.
“A Pharmacist is a qualified Diploma Holder registered under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 entrusted with professional responsibilities of maintaining drug inventory, dispensing medicines with due caution, providing patient counselling and assisting in clinical management. A COVID Health Assistant, on the other hand, was engaged temporarily during the pandemic crisis to perform auxiliary duties including distribution of medicines and support services. The scope, training and statutory responsibilities of a Pharmacist and CHA are distinct and cannot be treated as interchangeable.”
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma further held that when such a disputed question of fact was settled by the competent authority at the time of issuing relevant certificate to the Covid Health Assistance, it could not be re-examined in the writ jurisdiction of the Court, unless the decision was shown to be perverse or mala fide.
Title: Narendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 323
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the policy rationale of reservation in appointment to ex-servicemen is to operate as a one-time benefit to facilitate re-employment, and not as a perpetual device for career progression.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain rejected the petition filed by an ex-servicemen, who was re-appointed as a Village Development Officer under the reserved category of Ex-Servicemen, seeking appointment as a Junior Accountant under the same category, claiming benefit of last proviso to Rule 2-A of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988.
The Court further held that to accept petitioner's reliance of the proviso to Rule 2-A would lead to an anomalous situation wherein an employee who had secured regular appointment under one department continued to consume reserved opportunities, and would frustrate the object of reservation to extend benefit to unemployed ex-servicemen.
Title: Smt. Mishri Devi v Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department Pension Bhawan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 324
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief in a petition seeking family pension and other post-retirement benefits, filed after 24 years of the death of the petitioner's husband, opining that the question of limitation or delay could not be raised by the State to deny legitimate benefits to a government servant or his/her dependents.
Further, the bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that in case the procedure adopted to appoint the concerned government servant was similar to that of a substantive employee, benefits could not be denied to him/her or family, on the ground that the appointment letter mentioned “purely on temporary basis”.
Title: Abhishek Shah v Rajasthan Staff Selection Board & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 Live Law (Raj) 325
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the degree of BE/B.Tech and Computer Concept Certificate (CCC) shall be considered equivalent and sufficient to determine candidate's eligibility in recruitments requiring the certificate of Rajasthan State Certificate in Information Technology (“RS-CIT”).
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma was hearing a bunch of petitions in which the question involved was, whether holding a degree of B.Tech be considered sufficient for the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsildar Revenue Account that required possession of RS-CIT Certificate.
Title: Smt. Imarti Devi & Ors. v Nattha Ram & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 326
The Rajasthan High Court recently enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from around Rs. 7.80 Lakhs to around Rs. 60.62 lakhs, by recomputing the deceased's income in light of monthly EMIs being paid by him, as well as his holding of the agricultural land capable of yielding regular income.
The bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that the ability of an individual to repay heavy loan installments on a regular basis presupposed the existence of a substantially higher income than the discharged liability.
“…it would be wholly unrealistic to assume that a person paying EMI exceeding Rs.35,000/- could have been subsisting on a meagre income of Rs.4,914/- per month. The financial outgo evidenced by the bank transactions constitutes strong circumstantial proof of the deceased's earning capacity.”
Title: Girdhar Gopal v Sanwarmal Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 327
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a tenant whose affidavit of evidence filed with delay of over 1 month in an eviction case was not taken on record by the Rent Tribunal citing mandatory nature of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act.
The court while setting aside the tribunal's order however imposed a unique condition on the petitioner of not only planting 11 shady plants in his vicinity in a public area but also looking after those till final disposal of the application before Rent Tribunal, and further submitting photos of these at every quarter end.
Title: Ramswaroop Bhati v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 328
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition filed by the Chairman, Municipal Board, Jaitaran, against his suspension owing to an allegation of illegality in issuing pattas, and opined that the suspension of a public representative on mere allegations of irregularities would be detrimental to the public at large.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that a public representative was expected to work with the aid and advice of government officials. If an act was done by the elected representatives when the files were placed before him/her after examination of documents by government officials, it was normally expected of him/her to accept the same unless something contrary was brought on record.
Title: Mala Ram & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 329
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of petitions challenging creation of new Revenue Villages without convening a Gram Sabha meeting, observing that the creation of a village or alternation of revenue village's boundary depends on the specific needs of the village and is thus essentially an administrative act.
It was alleged by the petitioner that the proposal for creating new Revenue Villages was forwarded without convening a Gram Sabha meeting as mandated under the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules.
Further, it was submitted that certain proposed villages were named after local residents, which was also in violation of the circulars.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur opined that these circulars had no statutory force, unless it was established beyond doubt that the revenue villages were named after a particular person, deity or caste to appease a particular religion/political group/politically influential person, in an arbitrary and malafide manner, no challenge could be sustained.
Title: Bank of India v Paras Talkies & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 330
The Rajasthan High Court held that the DRAT had discretion under Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, to reduce the interest rate awarded by the DRT in favour of the secured creditor.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a challenge against the order of the DRAT by which the order passed by DRT was modified to the extent of reducing the interest rate from 15% per annum to 12% per annum simple.
Title: Vyas Dental College and Hospital v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed an order of the single bench which had imposed a fine of Rs. 7.50 Lakhs per student on Vyas Dental College for providing irregular admissions to dental students in the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20.
The division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Bipin Gupta was hearing the appeal filed by Vyas Dental College claiming that the such substantial, onerous and unwarranted fine was imposed without any prayer or prior notice to the appellant, and that too in addition to a separate penalty of Rs. 1 crore by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS).
Title: Kuldeep Singh v State of Rajasthan
Pursuant to non-appearance of police officers as witnesses in a criminal case despite service of arrest warrants against them, Rajasthan High Court summoned an explanation from the state's Director General Police as to why the subordinates were consistently failing to discharge their statutory duties.
Ordering the DGP to file an affidavit the court asked the senior officer to answer as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the "responsible officers for blatant disobedience of the Court's orders".
While terming the situation as most distressing and deplorable, Justice Farjand Ali observed, that the fact that serving police officer could not be apprehended despite an arrest warrant, shook the confidence of public in the justice delivery system and seriously eroded the faith of society in the preventive agency itself.
Title: Bhagirath Singh Chauhan v Bar Council of India
The Rajasthan High Court sought response from Bar Council of India (BCI), in a matter wherein a advocate–practicing for 13 years, alleged that despite clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) in 2012, he has been denied certificate of practice for not clearing AIBE within the stipulated time.
Title: Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan and other connected appeals
The Rajasthan High Court stayed a single bench decision which had canceled 2021 Sub-Inspector Recruitments on account of systemic irregularities.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit was hearing a batch of appeals against the cancellation of the selection of Sub-inspectors and the entire selection process of 2021, when the division bench observed that some of the important documents relied upon by the single judge were not accompanied by affidavits of the concerned officer.
The bench noted that one of the reports extensively relied upon by the single judge, was stated to be submitted by Vijay Kumar Singh IPS, holding the post of Additional DGP Anti-Terrorist Squad and Special Operations Group (SOG) and who was the Chairman of the Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Title: Shah Rukh Khan v/s The State Of Rajasthan and anr. and Batch
The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday (September 10) stayed investigation in a cheating FIR registered against Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan and actress Deepika Padukone for endorsing 'defective' Hyundai car.
For context, both Khan and Padukone are brand ambassadors for the car brand. FIR was registered under Sections 406(criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC. The FIR was lodged after the complainant filed a complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who sent the complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS, for registration of FIR and investigation to the concerned Police Station.
Justice Sudesh Bansal while issuing notices on a batch of pleas including those filed by Khan, Padukone, Managing Director of Hyundai and CEO of Hyundai Motor India Ltd., seeking quashing of the FIR and said:
"...let notice be issued to respondent No.2- complainant. In the meanwhile, further investigation in the impugned FIR No. 558/2025, registered at Police Station Mathuragate, District Bharatpur, qua petitioners shall remain stayed".
Title: Vivek Firoda v Rajasthan High Court through its Registrar General and Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court recently issued notice on a PIL seeking creation of an official WhatsApp Channel of the High Court for consolidated access to cause lists, e-filing details, order/judgments etc.
A division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta issued notice on a plea filed by a practising advocate.
The petitioner highlighted the fact that since 2023, the Court had started uploading cause lists on a “Telegram” channel. Further, the e-Courts website of the Court had also initiated a feature of sending text message on mobile number mentioned on the case file for updates like listed date, disposal of case, etc.
High Court Stays Rajasthan Chess Association Elections
Title: Ashok Kumar Bhargava v Mahaveer Ranka
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed elections of members of Rajasthan Chess Association, Jaipur till September 23.
The development comes in a petition moved by the Association's incumbent Secretary— Ashok Kumar Bhargava.
It is claimed that an inquiry is pending against the Association's President under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act 2001 and as such, there are 'prohibitory orders' so far as conduct of elections is concerned.
Title: Priyansha Gupta v Union of India
In furtherance to its order dated May 6, 2025, in the matter of PIL filed in relation to the menace of e-cigarettes, Rajasthan High Court has directed the DGP to prepare a team of officers representing various range headquarters to implement the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019 (“the Act”) in its entirety.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit in its order said:
"The Director General of Police shall prepare a team of Officers representing the various range headquarters, who would take steps to implement the Act of 2019 in its entirety. The Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, is also directed to appoint authorized Officers in terms of the provisions of the Act at each District level, who may be of the rank of Collector or Additional Collector to take steps to implement the provisions of Section 6 of the Act onwards"
Rajasthan High Court Pulls Up State, Election Commission Over Delay In Conducting Municipal Polls
Title: Smt. Urmila Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has criticised the State Election Commission and the State Government for failing to conduct timely elections to urban local bodies, holding that such delay undermines the constitutional mandate of democracy.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by former Sarpanchs who were made Chairpersons of Municipalities after the merger of their Panchayats, observed that the authorities failed in fulfilling their duty to hold municipal elections before the expiry of the five-year term.
The Bench noted that Article 243U of the Constitution and Section 7 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 mandate that every Municipality has a fixed tenure of five years, and elections must be held before the expiry of this term or within six months of dissolution.
Title: Himanshu v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court directed the State authorities to submit explanations over inaction on their part in implementing an order of the Court to reinstate an elected representative i.e. Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Uchchain, in absence of any challenge being made to the order.
Justice Ganesh Ram Meena questioned whether the State authorities could sit over the Court's order for a long time without making any sincere efforts for its implementation or availing any appropriate remedies under law to challenge the same.
Title: Tax Bar Association, Bhilwara v UOI & Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court has extended the deadline for filing the Tax Audit Report by one month. A division bench of Justice (Dr.) Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta at the Rajasthan High Court extended the deadline under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by 1 (one) month beyond September 30, 2025.
Title: Puran Chander Sen v. The State of Rajasthan and Others
Rajasthan High Court has slapped a cost of ₹50,000 on Advocate for filing a 'frivolous' petition seeking FIR against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah, MP Ravi Shankar Prasad and others over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.
Justice Sudesh Bansal observed that the averments in the plea were vague, non-specific and made to target the Government, for one or the other reasons.
"Petitioner, being an advocate, cannot be expected to make such bald, derogatory and serious allegations against the Government and its Ministry of Council. Such a sweeping allegation made by the petitioner against the respondents is nothing, but an attempt to malign their image and reputation as much as an attempt to create a hatred communal violence and such an action at the behest of Advocate cannot be appreciated, rather deserves to be deprecated," the bench observed.