Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 330 Orders/Judgments of the Month July 2025 Juvenile Justice Act Only Relevant For Quantum Of Sentence, Conviction Not Vitiated If Inquiry Is Not Conducted By JJB: Rajasthan High Court Title: Kailash v State of Rajasthan Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222 The Rajasthan High Court held that a conviction which had...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 330
Orders/Judgments of the Month
July 2025
Title: Kailash v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
The Rajasthan High Court held that a conviction which had been recorded cannot be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry into the juvenility of the accused was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015 would be attracted
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that a recorded conviction could not be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board as required under Section 25 of the
“Otherwise, the accused who has committed a heinous offence and who did not claim juvenility before the Trial Court would be allowed to go scot free… The object under the JJ Act, 2015 dealing with the rights and liberties of the juvenile is only to ensure that he or she could be brought into the main stream by awarding lesser sentence and also directing for other facilities for welfare of the juvenile, in conflict with law, during his/her stay in any of the institutions defined under the JJ Act, 2015,” the court said.
Title: Kiran Yadav v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the hallmark of judicial pronouncements is its stability and finality and thus, they should not be unsettled lightly.
"Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather," Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand remarked while dealing with a plea against cancellation of Petitioner's appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor.
It was observed that in a country governed by the Rule of Law, the finality of a judgment was absolutely imperative and it was not permissible for the parties to re-open concluded judgments of the Court.
Title: Kumari Neelam v Jai Prakash Natani & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 224
While hearing a challenge to the compensation of Rs. 1.49 crores awarded by the motor accident tribunal to a 21-year-old woman, Rajasthan High Court observed that the 100% lower body paralysis of the road-accident victim was not just an injury, but a “deep enduring rupture in the fabric of her life” that affected her sense of identity, independence and confidence.
The high court thus enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,49,88,153 Crores awarded by the tribunal to Rs. 1,90,68,153 Crores.
The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena further opined that any support or compensation received by her whether from the legal system or the society at large was not a favour but a necessary step towards justice, inclusion and human dignity, and the same must acknowledge not just the cost of medical case but the loss of opportunities, dignity and dreams. The court said that it had placed barriers to her path to family life and created heavy burden for those who loved and supported her.
Title: Shivsingh Meena v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 225
The Rajasthan High Court recently enlarged an NDPS accused on bail on a condition that he contribute to government's Swach Bharat mission for 2 hours daily, for two months.
In doing so, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain extended the scope of 'community service' contemplated under the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
The Act introduced community service as a punishment for certain minor offences, as a reformative approach to justice.
Justice Jain said, "as an extended interpretation of the provisions of 'community service' as enshrined under the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, and as a reformative approach to re-include the accusedapplicant back in the society with a better vision, aim and zeal in life, this court deems it fit to impose an ancillary condition upon the applicant, therefore, it is directed that the accused-applicant shall contribute to the Swach Bharat Abhiyan."
Title: M/s My Own Eco Energy Private Limited v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 226
The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman at the Rajasthan High Court has observed that drop-in bio fuels fall under the definition of petroleum and petroleum products, and would classify as essential commodities and would be subject to application of Central Government's Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005.
The Control Order empowered the Central Government to permit the direct sale of bio-diesel for blending with High Speed Diesel to all consumers only as per the limits and standards prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards.
Title: Babu Lal v the State of Rajasthan & Other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 227
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a batch of pleas by three persons–including a woman–seeking quashing of an FIR accusing them of a "large scale conspiracy" involving fabrication of educational credentials and impersonation in public examination, observing that these were grave offences “of public importance”.
Justice Sameer Jain ruled that the findings recorded by the Special Operations Group (“SOG”) collectively substantiated a "prima facie case" against the petitioners, and premature quashing of FIRs would result in abuse of legal process and prejudicing rights of legitimate aspirants.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Bhajan Lal v State of Haryana in which it was held that only in the “rarest of rare cases” the High Court should exercise its extraordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS, when allegation, even if acceptable at the face value, did not make out a cognizable offence, or if the registration was with malafide, collusion or ulterior motive.
Title: Bhomaram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 228
Terming the action of the State as “Gross inaction and illegal”, Rajasthan High Court directed the District Supply Officer to provide order's copy to the petitioner under which the Fair Price Shop License was granted in favour of the private respondent as opposed to the petitioner.
The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that the petitioner had the statutory remedy under Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976, which he could not avail without the order. Hence, the State was directed to provide the same to the petitioner within one week.
Title: M/S Soltown Infra Private Limited & Ors. v. Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 229
Rajasthan High Court ruled that power to blacklist a contractor was inherent in the party allotting the contract, without there being need for such power conferred by statute.
Blacklisting of a firm found to have committed fraud was not a concept foreign to contractual law. The law specifically provided for restraining any firm to enter into further business relations with a party if it was found to have committed fraud with the other party, it held.
The bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that the right to take such decisions if exercised between private parties was absolute, and if exercised by the State or its instrumentalities, was subject to judicial review on the touchstone of principles of natural justice and doctrine of proportionality.
Title: Shakti Singh & Ors. v Smt. Raj & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 230
While taking note of lack of legal education and training to the officers posted in Revenue Courts and Revenue Appellate Courts (collectively referred to as “Revenue Courts”), as well as the huge pendency in these courts, Rajasthan High Court suggested necessary proactive and corrective measures.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that the orders passed by Revenue Courts determine land ownership, tenancy rights, mutation, partition, declaration of khatedari rights, etc., immensely impacting not only their lives, but also lives of next generations of such litigants. Hence, living in the 21st century, poor functioning of the Revenue Courts cannot be allowed to proceed at a snail's pace, it said.
It observed that several officers posted in Revenue Courts are not acquainted with the procedure contained under the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the Indian Evidence Act and that is why, procedural lapses occur when they conduct trial of the cases.
Steps were suggested by the Court to ensure effective administration of justice in the Revenue Courts.
Title: Roshan Yadav v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 231
Rajasthan High Court rejected the petitions filed by 31 candidates who appeared for NEET-UG 2025 in Sikar, Rajasthan, seeking re-examination or bonus marks owing to power failure/outage and adverse weather conditions at their exam centers, on account of the principle of de minimis non curate lex— meaning, the law did not concern itself with trifles.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain took into account the fact that there were 98 centers allotted in Sikar out of which around 15 centers were adversely impacted due to power failure affecting 5,390 candidates. Out of these, only 31 had approached the Court. Such isolated grievances by statistically negligible candidate could not vitiate a large-scale pan-India level examination, the Court said.
Title: Bhaya Lal Bhagriya vs Union Of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 232
The Rajasthan High Court recently directed the Union Government to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the repatriation of the mortal remains of an Indian-origin man who passed away in the United Kingdom in April 2025, just one month after acquiring British citizenship.
With this, a bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal set aside a communication given by the Under Secretary (External Affairs Minister's Office) denying issuance of NOC to the son of the deceased.
Title: Dharmendra Kumar Bhardwaj v Ramesh Jain & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 233
The Rajasthan High Court has expressed pain over several appeals being pending before various Appellate Rent Tribunals for the last several years, opining that great hardship was being caused to the decree holders who failed to enjoy the fruits of the decrees, as well as the judgment debtors who suffered due to the long pendency of the appeal.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that eviction matters should be given priority in disposal at all stages of litigation, and expressed its hope that due attention shall be paid by all tribunals to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases. The order's copy was directed to be circulated to all judicial officers in Rent Tribunals and Appellate Rent Tribunals in the state.
Title: Anuj Kumar Kumawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 234
Stating that "fair criticism of a verdict is permissible", the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition moved by a law student challenging some passages of his University exam paper that commented on Supreme Court's judgment in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi – Babari Mosque case.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed,
“An academic or personal opinion expressed by a Student or Teacher or Scholar on a legal judgment, even one involving sensitive issues, cannot be equated with any religion attack. If a citizen writes an essay or critique on a verdict of the Court, reflecting personal interpretation, the same must be viewed as a positive and constructive exercise in legal reasoning and critical analysis, so long as it does not amount to contempt of Court.”
Title: Suresh v Dhruv Narayan Purohit & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 235
The Rajasthan High Court held that a suit for eviction could not be held to be barred even if the question of necessity had been decided against the landlord on previous occasions, on the ground that the landlord would never have bonafide and genuine necessity in future.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a challenge against a successive suit for eviction. It was the petitioner's case that on an earlier occasion, an eviction suit was filed by the landlord based on the need to run a saree shop, which was rejected. Now again, an eviction suit was filed for operating a tours and travels business, which was barred by res judicata.
Title: Tulachhi wife of Dhanraj v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 236
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition filed by a liquor license owner apprehending that her license won't be renewed owing to an amendment in the Rajasthan Excise and Legal Temperance Policy 2024-25 (“the Policy), ruling that the petition was pre-matured, and that mere apprehension of not being granted renewal under new Policy was not enough to maintain the petition.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Sandeep Shah held that it was well settled that a new policy would operate prospectively, and the persons carrying on the business in a legal manner under the old policy could not be subjected to the rigors of the new policy.
Title: Jitendra Goyal v Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 237
The Rajasthan High Court held that despite no renewal application being made by the trade-mark holder even after seven years of expiry, the Registrar of Trade Marks could not remove the registered Trade-Mark from the official record without following the process under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (“the Act”) and the rule 58 of the Trade Mark rules, 2017 (“the Rules”).
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that it was clear that the respondent was supposed to comply with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice before expiration of the trademark before proceeding to remove it from the official record.
Title: Firm Jehtmal & Sons v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 238
Rajasthan High Court has set aside a Sessions Court order dismissing an appeal against conviction under Section 138 NI Act over non-appearance of the appellant's counsel.
Opining the judgment to be passed in a "mechanical and cursory manner", without application of mind and against the principle of natural justice, the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg held that a party could not be allowed to suffer the consequences of counsel's negligence.
“…numerous rulings affirm that a party should not be penalized or prejudiced due to the negligence or misconduct of their legal counsel. The rationale underpinning this position is rooted in the recognition that the integrity of judicial proceedings depends on the principles of fairness and justice.”
Title: Sagar Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 239
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to the petitioner who was terminated from service 15 years after being granted compassionate appointment, on the ground that he was ineligible for appointment for having 3 children. Considering that no concealment was made by the petitioner and the appointment happened after due diligence by State, the Court set aside termination.
Underscoring the objective of compassionate appointment, the bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur opined that it was a well-settled position that compassionate appointment polices shall not be enforced with undue rigidity. Disqualification for having three children would override the humanitarian objective of the scheme.
Title: Munesh Gurjar v the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 240
Rajashtan High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Mayor of Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Heritage, against an order of the State by which she was placed under suspension owing to alleged involvement in a corruption incident along with her husband.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that instead of challenging the suspension order on merits, the petitioner had challenged the same on technical counts like the notice issued under Section 39(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 not being digitally signed, and a copy of appointment order of the Enquiry Officer not being provided to her.
The Court observed that being a public representative, the Petitioner was expected to act and conduct with dignity and graceful manner, but instead she had been charged with the offence of corruption which was widely regarded as “cancer” for the society.
Title: Prakash Manda v The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 241
The Rajasthan High Court held that no order of termination on account of questionable integrity could be passed under Clause 8(iii) and (iv) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (“the Orders”) without holding any enquiry.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the consequence of non-fulfilment of conditions in Clause 8(iii) of the Orders did not automatically entail into termination of the services of the probationer, more particularly when the person was charged for some illegality, then holding of enquiry was mandatory.
“In the present case, since the petitioner was found involved in carrying passengers without tickets and the allegation was that his integrity is questionable, consequently, his services were terminated, therefore, the same can easily be termed as an “order of termination” having been passed with stigma. Since the petitioner's services are being terminated on the ground of questionable integrity, therefore, the same is a stigmatic order and in such circumstances, holding of enquiry was sine-quo-non.”
Title: Angel Soni v The National Testing Agency & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 242
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the petition by a student seeking directions to the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) to provide her additional time to improve her marks in the 12th standard by way of supplementary exams and become eligible for admission to an IIT.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said:
“As per Rule 72, the revised marks are required to be furnished for seat allocation prior to the date of participation in the counselling. A complete mechanism has been provided for granting admission for the academic session, which cannot be disturbed by this Court, under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence, under these circumstances, relief sought for, cannot be granted by this Court and the petition is liable to be and is hereby rejected.”
Title: Purnamal Verma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 243
The Rajasthan High Court took note of numerous cases wherein orders for removal of Panchayat Members were passed without adhering to the mandatory provisions and procedures of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, observing that it appeared that Enquiry Officers were not well-versed with the provisions.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Divisional Commissioners, and District Collectors, to inform all the Chief Executive Officers of Panchayat Samitis about the importance of Rule 22, to prevent future errors.
The court said so after noting that in a democratic set up an elected representation represents the voice of the people that elected them and hence removal of such officials must be carried out carefully.
Title: Anand Prakash Agarwal & Ors. v The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 244
In a plea filed by four Court Masters challenging seniority list of Assistant Registrars claiming that despite being senior they had been put below Administrative Officers (Judicial) in the seniority list and were denied promotion, the Rajasthan High Court observed that criteria for promotion to the post is based on merit.
The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal referred to Clause 12 of a December 5, 2002 issued in pursuance to Rules 4, 5, and 7 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules 2002 and observed that the language of the order was clear that the criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar shall be based on merit.
Title: Sunil Kumar Gupta v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 245
Expressing displeasure at the State for its "insensitivity and apathy" in denying salary and service benefits to an 80% disabled employee, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to issue necessary order to all departments to identify disabled employees and grant them benefit under Clause 20(4) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal said,
"The aforesaid case is a classic case reflecting the insensitivity and apathy of the respondents towards the plight of a disabled person who has been denied benefit under the Act of 2016 by the respondents for last about five and a half year without any justification which frustrates the laud object of the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In the aforesaid factual context, this Court deems it just and proper to issue a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan to issue necessary instruction/circular to all the Government Departments to identify such disabled employees, if any, and to extend them benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016 in its letter and spirit, immediately".
It was further opined that such act on part of the State to not provide benefits to the disabled government employee who was eligible under the Act also amounted to violation of his fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21.
Title: Bipul Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 246
The Rajasthan High Court upheld denial of bail to a juvenile charged with the allegations of “brutally” murdering a person along with the co-accused, on grounds of gravity of the offence, his direct involvement and absence of compelling reasons to grant bail.
Underscoring the awareness of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (the “Act”), the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed that under provisions of BNSS, the gravity of offence significantly influenced the court's decision to grant or deny bail.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the release of a juvenile was preferred unless there existed a belief that such release might associate the juvenile with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological harm, or otherwise such release might frustrate the objective of justice.
Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Munni & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 247
While rejecting an insurance company's plea challenging Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal's award granting over Rs. 66 Lakh compensation to a 58-year-old deceased government servant's kin, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that adoption of the split multiplier method for calculating compensation was impermissible in law.
The court further reiterated that major dependant children are entitled to compensation while married children's dependancy has to be evaluated carefully.
Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Maya Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025), Justice Ganesh Ram Meena reiterated that adoption of the split-multiplier method "is now impermissible in law" for being arbitrary and speculative.
Title: Rasida Khatoon v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 248
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea by Chairperson of a Municipal Council suspended for allegedly misusing her position to "illegally" grant title-deeds in favour of persons known to her, observing that the official cannot claim immunity on the ground that no action was taken against another official who had also signed the title deeds.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not meant to "perpetuate any illegality" even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases.
"If any wrong is committed by the authorities, then in similar matter it cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. Equality cannot be claimed in illegality and, therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. This Court trusts and believes that appropriate action would be taken by the respondents against all the erring Officers who are involved in the incident of issuing illegal pattas in contravention of the Rules," the court added.
The Court also made a reference to the coordinate bench decision in Narendra Kumar Khodaniya v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. to state, the principle of “delegated power cannot be further delegated” was not applicable in administrative action or ministerial act, rather to statutory judicial and quasi-judicial function.
Title: Harish Madhan v Kshema Power and Infrastructure co. pvt. ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 249
Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the Trial Court that rejected petitioner's application seeking refund of Court Fees in light of settlement on the ground that the settlement was reached at the appellate stage after decree was passed by the trial court.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that the district judge seemed to have committed a grave error in interpreting the provision of Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1961(“the Act”) opining that the interpretation went against the intent and spirit of Section 89, CPC.
“A perusal of the above, clearly leaves no manner of doubt that, as long as the matter is settled between the parties qua their dispute, as envisaged under Section 89 CPC, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of full amount of the fee paid in respect of the court fees affixed on the plaint...If the view taken by the learned trial court is sustained that would result in a fallacious & erroneous approach, inasmuch as, settlement arrived between the parties at appellate stage would disentitled them any refund of court fees, which goes against very intent and the spirit of geniality envisaged under Section 89 CPC.”
Title: Ibra v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 250
The Rajasthan High Court has come down heavily upon staff working at subordinate courts in the state for going on strike, calling it illegal and uncalled for directing them to resume the duty latest by July 25.
The court said that while the issue of redesigning cadre strength of court staff was already being looked into by the government, the Rajasthan Judicial Employees Association had directly written to the Chief Minister, not through the high court Registrar General calling it a serious act of indiscipline.
Underscoring Supreme Court rulings to the effect that lawyers did not have right to strike as it affected fundamental rights of litigant to speedy justice, Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that employees who were getting bread and butter from money of the tax payers could not resort to a strike.
Title: Ashok Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 251
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to government teachers whose promotion to the post of senior teachers was overturned on the ground that the B.A. Additional course undertaken by them for being eligible for the post was just a certificate/vacation evaluation course and not equivalent to the degree course.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur found the decision of the State to be "erroneous" in light of the reply filed by the University from which the course was done. As per the reply submitted by the Mewar University, the duration of the B.A. additional course was not 90 days but one year.
"In the considered opinion of this Court, nothing has come on record which shows that the B.A. Additional Course conducted by the respondent-University is not recognized, therefore, the B.A. Additional Course conducted by the University is held to be equivalent to the eligibility condition mentioned in Schedule-1 of the Rules of 2008 and, therefore, the certificates/vacational B.A. Additional Course possessed by the petitioners are held to be valid as per the Rules of 2008. Thus, the promotions granted to the petitioners on the post of Senior Teacher is just, proper and correct as they are holding the requisite qualification for the post"
Title: Sammaan Capital v District Magistrate & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 252
The Rajasthan High Court has expressed displeasure over the order by a District Magistrate, who, while allowing an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the “SARFAESI Act”), attached a condition of non-execution in case of any dispute regarding title/possession over the property.
While terming it “totally unwarranted”, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that in light of clear orders being issued in earlier cases to all the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates/District Magistrates, it was expected that in future, such orders shall be followed without any adventure in their interpretation.
Title: Arun Fatehpuria & Anr. v Tarachand Tholia
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 253
The Rajasthan High Court has held that merely on account of rent payment through the bank account of a partnership firm, the latter did not automatically become the tenant when the tenancy agreement was entered into with the partner(s) of that firm and not the partnership firm itself.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that even though, in general law, the “partnership firm” was not a distinct legal entity, the definition of “tenant” under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (“the Act”) included a person by whom or on whose behalf the rent was paid.
Title: Pushp Chand v Smt. Madhu Rathi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 254
Rejecting a time-barred restoration application filed by two out of nine plaintiffs in the original suit pertaining to a property dispute which was dismissed based on compromise, the bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court said that the silence of the remaining seven plaintiffs for over 2 decades was seen as acquiescence and tacit endorsement.
"The defendants case is that a settlement was arrived with the plaintiffs. It was pursuant to this compromise that the plaintiffs' counsel withdrew the suit. Notably, seven plaintiffs have never contested this fact. Their silence over such a material issue for over two decades supports the inference of a concluded compromise and deliberate and intentional withdrawal of the suit. The assertion by the defendants that a settlement had been reached—followed by payment and subsequent withdrawal—finds substantial support in the silence of seven plaintiffs for over two decades. Their silence, when they were neither minor nor infirm, amounts to acquiescence. Courts view long-standing silence on material issues as tacit endorsement. In this case, it strongly reinforces the inference that the withdrawal was a part of a concluded compromise, thereby making the attempt at restoration unjust and disruptive to settled expectations".
Secondly, the Court opined that despite living in the same city where the litigation was pending, the fact that the respondents did not came to know about the dismissal defied both judicial expectations of diligence as well as ordinary prudence that for over two years no attempt was made to contact the counsel regarding the case's progress.
Title: Suresh Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 255
While setting aside attachment proceedings over a disputed property Rajasthan High Court held that if the land in question belonged to a private individual, passing an order that failed to specify duration of police custody of the land rendered the direction illegal, vague and unsustainable.
Justice Farjand Ali further observed that continues possession of the land by the police in absence of any pending civil or revenue litigation in its relation was not only unjustified, rather, an alien thing to legal notion.
Title: Mohammad Muslim v The Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 256
Rajasthan High Court allowed an application by an accused charged under Section 498A, IPC, to travel to Mecca-Madina for performing the religious rituals of Haj, for a period of two months, opining that denying permission to travel abroad for religious purposes, owing to pendency of criminal case under the provision amounted to violation of right under Article 21.
While issuing a judicial direction to all subordinate courts, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that whenever an application was submitted by an accused to travel abroad, clear order of granting/not granting the permission shall be passed, to aid the Passport Authority to take appropriate decisions.
“It is observed by this Court on many occasions that because of non-passing of clear and specific orders, the Passport Authority is not in a position to take appropriate decision. Henceforth, it is expected from all the subordinate courts to pass clear and specific orders whenever such application is submitted by the accused seeking permission to go abroad to avoid any kind of confusion in the mind of the Passport Authority,” said the Court.
August 2025
Title: Sohan Singh v Rajkidevi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
The Rajasthan High Court has held that in case allegations in a plaint make out a case of the transfer of a property being voidable, only the civil courts shall have jurisdiction, and not the revenue courts, irrespective of the disputed property being an agricultural land and a bar on the same under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”).
Section 207 of the Act lays down that certain suits and applications relating to agricultural land must be heard and determined exclusively by a revenue court.
The bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma was hearing a revision petition challenging order of the Trial Court that rejected petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, seeking dismissal of the suit filed by respondent.
Title: Manni Devi v Rama Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 258
The Rajasthan High Court has opined that when daughters belonging to non-Scheduled Tribe (“ST”) communities were entitled to equal share in father's property, there was no reason to deny the same right to the daughters of the ST community.
Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down the scope of application of the Act, and Section 2(2) gives states that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.
Noting that Section 2(2) of the Act was operates as "barrier in the way of female tribal asserting their rights in their father's property", Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said that it was "right and high time" for the Union Government to revisit the provision and if deemed fit to "amend the same" to safeguard and promote the rights of Female Members of the Scheduled Tribe community.
Title: Ram Kishan v Ram Dai & Ors.
Citation: 2025 Live Law (Raj) 259
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the trial court's decision in an ex parte proceeding in which a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was allowed against the petitioner based on the fact that the service of summons was incomplete under Order 5, Rule 17, CPC.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that service of summons by affixing notice at a house without verifying the address of the noticee by obtaining signatures of an independent witness could not be treated as complete.
“Process Server failed to secure the signature of witness, residing in the same vicinity, in the report of service of summons. It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Process Server, proceedings as well as ex-parte judgment and decree was passed against the petitioner…On the basis of such unverified report, the Trial Court treated the service as complete.”
Title: Raisuddin v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 260
Upholding an order acquitting a man accused of kidnapping a girl, the Rajasthan High Court refused to accept the certificate issued by the girl's school as proof of age in absence of any document or evidence of school staff or register admission form or mark sheet based on which such the certificate was issued.
The court said that certificate issued by a school can only be based on the entries made in scholar register maintained by the school which were made based on the entry mentioned in admission form filled by parents or guardian of the student, neither of which were on record.
Justice Farjand Ali observed “Ostensibly, a certificate of the school can only be issued based on the entries made in scholar register maintained by the school and entries in scholar register are to be made on the basis of the entry mentioned in admission form filled by parents or guardian of the student…neither the admission form nor the scholar register or any mark-sheet has been brought on record nor any officer of the School has been examined to establish the above fact. As per section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, only the register maintained by a public school is a relevant fact and thus admissible for the evidence. A certificate, veracity of which is not known as to who issued it, cannot be made basis to determine the age of any incumbent. This Court is of the view that Exhibit P-9 cannot be made a basis for determining the age of victim and thus the learned trail court has rightly discarded it"
Title: Chandra Kant Ramawat v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 261
The Rajasthan High Court said that in cases where "prima facie electronic evidence" in form of voice/video recording is available against accused, then it would be travesty of justice to not allow prosecution against them for non-fulfilment of requirement of prior approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur said that while prior approval under Section 17A for prosecution aims to protect public officials from malicious complaints, however the provision cannot be used a tool to protect corrupt officials who made a recommendation or had taken a particular decision for their own benefit.
Title: Riteesh Kumar Jyotishi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 262
Upholding the 2021 Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination result, the Rajasthan High Court said that the normalization process followed was as per law and the accommodation granted to female candidates to appear for the exam one day prior on account of Karwa Chauth does not violate Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the final selection list on the ground that normalization methodology adopted by the Examination Board was applied ex-post facto and was also in contravention with law.
Title: Garvit Vyas v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 263
The Rajasthan High Court held that the Indian Body Builders Federation (IBBF) is a national level body duly recognized by the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, and hence the certificates issued by it were recognizable and deserved to be considered for the purpose of recruitment and weightage of marks.
The division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu further highlighted that if the certificate was not considered since IBBF was not recognized by the Indian Olympic Association (“IOA”), there would be no national level body whose certificate could be held to be valid since there was no other body recognized at the national level by IOA.
Title: Manish Saini v Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 264
The Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on a school that sent an erroneously filled examination form of a student to the CBSE for compartment examination, and also issued an incorrect “Transfer Certificate” based on which the petitioner completed his graduation.
The high court imposed the cost on the school to be paid in one month to the petitioner noting he was "harassed unnecessarily". The court further said that sending an incorrect examination form of the petitioner to the Board and issuing him an erroneous Transfer Certificate showing him as “XII Passed” indicates gross negligence on the part of the School.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if any fault was committed by the school authorities, the petitioner student could not be made to suffer in a way that jeopardized his entire future and career.
Title: Smt. Mariya v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 265
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a 32-year old woman, accused in a dual murder case, opining that her situation was inherently vulnerable since she had a five year old son and no familial support to look after him.
“This innocent child, in the crucial formative years of his development, is deprived of the essential care, guidance, and emotional sustenance that only a mother can provide…Such involuntary deprivation not only inflicts severe emotional and psychological distress upon the petitioner but also undermines the child's welfare and well-being…This separation, therefore, transcends mere physical distance, amounting to a profound denial of the petitioner's elemental right to motherhood and care giving, thereby compounding her already precarious and vulnerable predicament,” said the bench of Justice Farjand Ali.
Title: Sarla Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 266
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the suspension of the Chairperson of a Municipal Board accused of misconduct, however it continued an inquiry initiated against her under Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009 instituted after the concerned area was converted from a gram panchayat to a municipality.
The court observed that inquiry initiated under either provisions of the Panchyati Raj Act or the Municipalities Act may continue even after expiry of the elected member's term against whom misconduct is alleged, as the member cannot escape accountability merely because their term has ended.
Justice Sunil Beniwal in his order compared inquiry provisions of Panchyati Raj Act and Municipalities Act and said:
"A comparative reading of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 and Section 40 of the Act of 2009 clearly indicates that an inquiry initiated under either provision may continue even after the expiry of the term of the elected member against whom the misconduct is alleged. What emerges from a plain reading of both provisions is that a person accused of misconduct cannot escape his/her accountability merely because his/her term has ended".
Title: Seher Gogia v The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
Stating that children born to Indian citizens outside India often face great challenges relating to citizenship, the Rajasthan High Court has urged the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to revisit the provisions of laws related to the issue, and if deemed necessary, make necessary amendments.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was dealing with a petition filed by a 5 year old girl. She was born to Indian citizens in Australia and thus acquired citizenship of that country. She moved the Court seeking visa extension, which was in astray amid matrimonial dispute between her parents.
The Court directed the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (“FRRO”) to extend her visa for maximum period without insisting on mother's NOC, and also to consider her application for issuance of Overseas Citizenship of India Card (“OCI Card”),“sympathetically” within 3 months.
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 268
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a father's petition to terminate his minor daughter's pregnancy following alleged rape on the basis of the daughter's unwillingness to undergo the procedure. The Court opined that the consent given by the guardians could not override the autonomy and decision of the pregnant victim.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that granting permission, as sought by the parents, would not only violate the victim's Right to Life but also infringe the right to life of the fetus/unborn child in the womb of the victim, as guaranteed under Article 21.
No Suspension Of Vehicle's Registration Without Proof Of Overloading: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Kanwar Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 269
The Rajasthan High Court said that the orders passed by the District Transport Officer, Kothputli suspending registration of vehicles based on allegations by Department of Mines that vehicles were overloaded without actual weighing the vehicles, were unsustainable.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that the orders were passed merely on the basis of an assumption, relying solely on the report received from the Mining Department, and without actually measuring the weights of the vehicles.
“…order of suspension of registration of the vehicles shall be passed by the Transport Department, only after physical verification of the vehicles, including weighing and measurements of such vehicles that too solely in the cases where overloading is found and established upon such verification. The registration of vehicles should not be suspended based merely on the allegations of overloading on the basis of data or information received from the Department of Mines.”
Title: M/s Mdindia Health Insurance Pvt. Ltd. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 270
The Rajasthan High Court held that an order of blacklisting beyond the scope of charges in the show cause notice was not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but also amounted to a denial of opportunity, affecting the right of business of the aggrieved party.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition by an insurance company, which was appointed as a Third Party Administrator for the Rajasthan Government Health Scheme, against the order of the State that blacklisted it from participating in other tender processes for 3 years.
Title: District Transport Officer, Haumangarh v Banwarilal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 271
The Rajasthan High Court held that merely because the transport vehicle for carriage of passengers was mentioned in the definition u/s 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (“Act”), Permanent Lok Adalat (“PLA”) had no jurisdiction to entertain an application regarding imposition of tax or the rate of imposition of tax in a particular matter.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi observed that rate of imposition of tax by the Transport Department did not fall under the category of “Public Utility Services” under Section 22A(b) of the Act, and hence, at what rate the tax will be imposed on a particular vehicle could not be brought within that category.
Title: Ankita Singodia v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
The Rajasthan High Court constituted an expert committee at AIIMS Delhi to examine an MBBS student who became blind after completing 2 years of the course, and recommend appropriate modalities and methodologies to enable her to complete the course.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that there were multiple people, in India and overseas, who became successful doctors despite visual impairment. It referred to Right of Persons with Disabilities Act and said that while framing the guidelines, Doctors with disabilities ought to have been considered.
“The competency of a Doctor with disability cannot be assumed, as unless it is experienced one may not understand the same.If a person with visual impairment is already a Doctor, it shall be possible for a blind person to be a Doctor. It seems to be a difficult struggle for these blind men to achieve what they want. Being blind need not destroy one's dreams.”
Title: Arman v Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 273
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court expressed shock with a school for failing to send a student's examination form for writing improvement exam to CBSE despite three reminders, observing that the school's casual approach is an "attempt to spoil the future" and one year of the student's academic career.
In view of the fact that the school had already compensated the student of Rs. 1.10 Lakhs and student had been allowed to appear in the repeat paper for the subject, the court disposed of the plea while directing CBSE to declare the result in a week.
Title : Continental Engineering Corporation Limited v Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 274
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Chandra Prakash Shrimali has held that merely if an application filed under Section 10, Commercial Courts Act (“CCA”) does not mention Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) in the heading, it does not mean that the application cannot be treated as an application under Section 34, ACA. Filing the application under Section 10, CCA and annexing the Section 34 petition fulfils the requirement of Section 34 and such a filing is not defective or untenable in law.
The Court observed that merely mentioning a wrong heading of provision on the application would not defeat the cause of justice. The contents of the application are required to be seen and not the provision mentioned on it. The court can understand by a bare reading of the application as to under which provision the same has been filed and what the litigant means to plead before the court. The Court observed that from a perusal of the application moved by the Appellant it was apparent that the application filed by the Appellant was of the nature of raising objections against dismissal of the award by the Tribunal.
Title: Nisha Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a woman claiming to be the widow of a man, to complete her Diploma Course in Elementary Education under ST (Widow) Category, despite challenge to her status of “widow” by the subsequent wife of the deceased.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the status of the petitioner as “widow” or “divorced wife” of the deceased could not be adjudicated by it as it is a disputed question of fact. It however said that since she was allowed to continue the course based on an interim order, she could not be deprived of the benefit now.
"It is for the petitioner and the respondent No.8 (subsequent wife) to approach the appropriate forum of law for declaration of their status. But looking to the fact that by way of passing an interim order dated 21.10.2024 passed by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to undergo her studies of Diploma Course in Elementary Education and she has completed the same, now, at the verge of completion of the aforesaid course, she cannot be deprived from the benefit of studies, which she has underwent under the protection of the interim order passed by this Court".
Title: Mrs. Nirmala Kabra v The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 276
The Rajasthan High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to decide all pending Trademark registration applications expeditiously, observing that it was expected of the authority to come up with a "strategy" to address the issue of "backlogs".
The court passed the order while hearing a petition seeking expeditious decision on a 15-year-old trademark registration application of the mark 'Breastone'.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand expressed "surprise" and "shock" over the present case, noting that the application for registration had been lying pending for adjudication for over one and half decade i.e. more than fifteen years which is a "clear act of violation" of the mandatory provisions of Rule 50, Trade Mark Rules 2017.
"A fast and simple mechanism to secure the Intellectual Property Rights and in terms to secure the business, is tantamount and a need of the hour. By addressing this issue of delay in disposal of the pending Trademark Registration Applications, in an expeditious manner, the system can better serve the purpose in resolving the Trademark disputes fairly and effectively, upholding the principles of justice and maintaining public confidence," it added.
Title: Manav Seva Samiti v Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 277
Rajasthan High Court set aside an order that rejected a public charitable trust's application for condonation of 700-day delay in filing its audit report under form 10-B of the Income Tax Act, observing that looking at the charitable activities itself the delay should have been condoned.
The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Sandeep Taneja while condoning the delay, held that a public charitable trust, which otherwise satisfied the condition for availing exemption should not be denied the same merely due to the "bar of limitation" especially when the statute conferred such "wide discretionary powers" to condone delay.
"The fact that there was any mala fide intention in filing Form 10B belatedly is not alleged in impugned order. The fact that petitioner is a charitable trust is also not denied. Looking at the charitable activities itself, in our view, delay condonation application should have been allowed," the court said.
Title: Aditya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
The Rajasthan High Court granted relied to a student whose scholarship application under state government's Swami Vivekananda Scholarship for Academic Excellence Scheme to study abroad, was rejected on the ground that he failed to submit his resignation letter from his workplace 1-month prior to commencement of his course.
In doing so the court said that the petitioner cannot be expected to resign from his job prior to his selection to the course. It further emphasized on the role that scholarships play for students, calling it "life changing opportunities".
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that until a candidate received provisional selection letter of his scholarship, s/he could not be expected and compelled to resign and furnish the relieving letter from the company where s/he was working.
Title: Gram Panchayat, Asota v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 279
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea challenging inclusion of village Asota in the Sujangarh Master Plan 2036 on the ground that it was done despite objections by the Gram Panchayat and was detrimental to the panchayat's autonomy.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur held that consultation with the respective Gram Panchayat that was done prior to such inclusion was sufficient and the consent was not a sine-qua-non for taking the policy decision.
The Court held that once an area was declared as “Urban Area” within Section 2(1)(x) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (the “Act”), the State was well within its rights to grant permission for land conversions from agricultural to non-agricultural uses, for development, improvement and expansion of such area.
Title: Shankar Lal Saini v Smt. Nagina Patoliya & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 280
In the background of conflicting orders of Supreme Court, Rajasthan High Court held that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of appeal had to be heard at the time of final hearing of appeal.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed against an order of Appellate Rent Tribunal that rejected petitioner's application requesting decision of the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC, before decision on appeal against the eviction order.
the Court highlighted the conflicting Supreme Court judgments on the issue. In the case of North Eastern Administration Gorakhpur v Bhagwan (2008), the Apex Court had held that application submitted under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC had to be decided first before taking up the appeal on merits.
On the contrary, in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Ors. (2012) it was ruled by the Supreme Court that such application, even if filed during pendency of appeal had to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal. In case it was considered and allowed prior to hearing of the appeal, such order was a product of complete non-application of mind.
Title: Mahaveer Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 281
The Rajasthan High Court held that removing formal Sarpanch(s) who were allowed to hold the post of Administrators till next elections even after expiry of more than 6 months of dissolution of their respective panchayats, without following the procedure established by law for holding fresh Panchayat elections, was a glaring example of violation of a constitutional mandate.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further opined that prolonged postponement of these elections could result in a governance vacuum at the local level, and it was expected of the Government of Rajasthan to look into the matter promptly to ensure that the elections of the Panchayati Raj Institutions were conducted at the earliest.
Title: Naurang v Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
The Rajasthan High Court held that where a decree of prohibitory injunction is rendered nugatory by judgment-debtor's willful and unlawful act of dispossessing the decree holder from the disputed property, the executing court had the power to direct restoration of possession under Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC.
Rejecting the argument that executing court's jurisdiction was confined to enforcing decree which in this matter was only prohibitory injunction and not delivery of possession, Justice Farjand Ali observed,
“The essence of an injunction decree is to preserve possession and to restrain intrusion, “injunct” in itself means you shall not enter or to restrain by injunction. If, in defiance thereof, possession is forcibly taken, then the concept of injunction equally encompasses the authority “to expel” and to restore the rightful party back into possession".
Title: Harbajan Singh v Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
The Rajasthan High Court held that denying salary to an employee for the period when they were detained in custody on criminal charges–not relating to misconduct in discharge of official duties–and were subsequently acquitted, was inequitable.
Justice Anand Sharma in his order said: "The broad and salutary principle is that where an employee is detained in custody on criminal charges not attributable to the employee's misconduct in the discharge of official duties and is subsequently acquitted, the employee cannot be made to suffer an avoidable punitive financial burden. This court finds that inequity results where an employee, who remained out of duty on account of detention (and not by his own volition), is treated more harshly than an employee who remained under suspension while on bail".
Title: Khuman Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 284
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the challenge made to an amendment brought in by the Transport Department by which a new category of “sleeper bus” was added for levying motor vehicle tax, taking it out from the previous category without qualifying it for the exemptions available under other categories.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi held that the “bus” fell in the definitions under Sections 2(7) and 2(29) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and once the type or class of vehicle was categorised further based on seating capacity/berth arrangement as per body types defined under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990, the State was within its right to categorize such vehicle for tax imposition.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the different rate of taxes was kept based on intelligible differential of the class of vehicles and the area of their operation, hence, there was no violation in imposing different tax rates on sleeper buses as compared to other buses.
Title: Dr. Rafique Khan v National Institute of Ayurveda
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 285
While disagreeing with the judgment of a single judge the Rajasthan High Court held that the institutional preferences applied by institutes at the stage of admissions had to be applied to all the students who passed out from that institution, and there could not be any artificial distinction amongst those students based on year of passing.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit however said that despite the disagreement with the single judge's judgment, relief of directing admission of petitioner would not be possible at this stage, since the time frame for admission was over.
Title: The Rajasthan Public Service Commission v Lavanshu Shukla & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 286
Rajasthan High Court rejected the appeal filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (“RPSC”), against a single bench decision wherein the respondents, were allowed to appear in the examination for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer, who had not passed their law degree but were appearing, at the time of filing the application form.
The division bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta rejected the argument by RPSC that since the advertisement prescribed last date of application, all qualifications required for the exam, as prescribed under Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Services Rules, 1978 (“the Rules”) should have been obtained by that date.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Chimna Ram
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 287
The Rajasthan High Court rejected State's plea to withdraw a criminal case against Churu MLA Harlal Singh from BJP, who is accused of using forged Class 10 marksheet along with his nomination papers for contesting the election of Zila Parishad member in 2015.
Terming it a “gruesome crime involving misuse of public office and public money”, the division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that State could not justify how withdrawing the case would lead to broadening ends of public justice, public order and peace.
The Court said, “If we examine the record of the case in light of provisions of Section 321 of Cr.P.C. coupled with the principles propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Ajith & ors. (supra) and the position of law annunciated in the cases of Abdul Kareem and others (supra) as well as Rajendra Kumar (supra), it is well settled that the permission for withdrawal from prosecution cannot be granted mechanically. Withdrawal must be for proper administration of justice and only in the public interest. In the present case, neither the State Government has submitted the report regarding satisfaction of the learned Public Prosecutor nor the grounds/reasons for withdrawing the First Information Report...registered...against the accused - Harlal Singh have been assigned in the minutes of the meeting held on 26.11.2024"
Title: Pragya Singh v Union of India And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 288
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a NEET-UG candidate who although belonged to the OBC-NCL (Other Backward Classes Non-Creamy Layer) category as per the State list, but was however treated to be from General category in the first round of admission.
In doing so the court said that she shall be considered under OBC-NCL category for the purpose of state seats.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit directed the Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, to take steps to issue directions by the Department allowing similarly situated candidates in the counselling against the OBC-NCL Category seats, which are to be filled from the State quota alone.
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 289
The Rajasthan High Court refused to permit medical termination of over 32-week pregnancy of a hearing and verbally impaired minor rape survivor, in light of unfavorable opinion of the medical board which indicated serious danger that termination procedure may pose to both fetus and the girl.
Taking into account the medical report Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his August 8 order said:
"In the instant case, Medical Board of five Doctors was of the opinion that the petitioner is carrying pregnancy of 32 weeks and termination of such pregnancy is not advisable. As per the opinion of the Board, it would not be safe and would be life threatening to the mother due to advance gestational age and considering the age of the minor victim and looking to overall facts and circumstances, the passage of time and delay caused in approaching this Court, which is on the part of the petitioner, has only further aggravated the said aspect. There is no material available on the record of this Court on the basis of which this Court may differ with the opinion expressed by the Medical Board. Directing medical termination of this pregnancy, at such an advanced stage, would not only endanger life of the minor victim and would also affect the life of fetus in the womb".
Title: Mahesh Joshi v Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 290
The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Congress leader and former Minister for Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Mahesh Joshi booked in a PMLA case for allegedly colluding to facilitate grant of illegal tenders under Jal Jeevan Mission and receiving "bribe" of Rs. 2 Crores for the same as well as laundering funds.
Justice Praveer Bhatnagar perused the evidence submitted on records by the investigating officers, and opined that the evidence clearly demonstrated Joshi's involvement in the alleged offence.
"The investigation into the corruption case has revealed significant misconduct involving co-accused Padam Chand and Mahesh Mittal, who are alleged to have secured government tenders through unethical and corrupt practices. It has come to light that a close associate of the petitioner, Sanjay Badaya, was implicated in receiving bribes from contractors, which facilitated the manipulation of official assignments to favour certain individuals or entities. This connection raises substantial concerns regarding the petitioner's integrity and involvement in these corrupt dealings".
Title: Kailash Chand Sharma & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 291
The Rajasthan High Court cancelled the 2021 recruitment undertaken by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) of candidates to the post of Sub-Inspectors, in the background of revelation of systemic irregularities–paper leak, cheating during examination, use of dummy candidates–in the conduct of the entire process.
Justice Sameer Jain said that such recruitment process ought to be canceled and this cancellation is "necessary to uphold the integrity of the State in the conduct of public recruitment examinations". In doing so the court also took suo-moto cognizance of the “systemic malpractices” within RPSC in the State "in light of the grave improprieties and malpractices that have been brought to light, involving members of the RPSC".
Underscoring the shortcomings revealed in the SIT report in the conduct of the recruitment process, the single judge took a suo-moto cognizance of the malpractices within the RPSC for institution of a PIL; it directed the Registrar to place the order before the Chief Justice for appropriate proceedings.
Title: Suo Moto
The Rajasthan High Court has taken suo moto cognizance of the dog bite incidents in the state, and the menace of stray animals on public roads and highways causing multiple deaths in the state.
The court took note of a news reports in various newspapers reporting incidents of dog-bites in Rajasthan, one of which referred to a report published by the Press Information Bureau, which is further based on information given by Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairy in Lok Sabha, giving "alarming figures regarding dog bite cases in India".
The division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Ravi Chirania in its order said:
"This Court further finds that the stray dogs and cows have created menace not only on the city roads but also on State & National Highways, which declares these roads as highly unsafe for the citizens. The incidents due to stray dogs, cows and other such animals have increased immensely.The Government of Rajasthan in the year 2018 published a report containing data of ten years from 2009-2010 to 2018. The data specifically contains figures regarding the deaths caused in the State of Rajasthan due to stray animals, which are more than 185 in the year 2018. Though the accidents are increasing day by day due to stray animals but the consolidated data has not been reported by the State Government after the year 2018".
Title: Suo Motu vs. Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Government Of India & Others
The Rajasthan High Court on August 11 directed municipal bodies to remove stray dogs and other animals from city roads while ensuring that minimum physical harm is caused to them.
The division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Ravi Chirania further said that if anyone obstructs the municipal bodies from removing stray animals from the roads/colonies/public paths, then Municipal officials/employees are at liberty to take action against such persons which includes lodging FIRs for obstructing public servants from performing their duties.
The court passed the direction in a suo moto plea wherein the court had earlier taken cognizance of the dog bite incidents in the state and the menace of stray animals on public roads and highways causing multiple deaths. Notably, earlier today the Supreme Court had directed the authorities in the National Capital Territory of Delhi to immediately start picking up stray dogs from all localities and shift them to dog shelters. The directions also extend to Noida, Gurugram and Ghaziabad.
Title: Asharam Alias Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan
In the background of Gujarat High Court's order in which the temporary bail of Asaram Bapu was extended till August 21 on medical grounds, Rajasthan High Court has also extended the bail granted to him in a 2013 rape case till August 29, 2025.
Last month, vide its order dated July 8, 2025, the division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur had extended the bail till August 12, based on a July 3 decision of Gujarat High Court, in which notably, the Gujarat High Court had clarified that further prayer for extension of temporary bail shall not be entertained on medical ground.
While directing the Medical Board to also opine on need of applicant's hospitalization or continuous medical attendance, the Court extended the bail till August 29, 2025, and listed the matter on August 27, 2025.
Title: Padam Kumar Jain v Bank of Maharashtra and Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court has issued a general notice inviting all the members of the bar to address the issue, “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?”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed by a person whose bank account was seized by the Bank of Maharashtra at the instance of a letter received from the Police, allegedly without following any procedure prescribed under Section 102 Cr.P.C.
Rajasthan High Court Stays BSc Nursing Counselling For Academic Year 2025-26 Until Further Orders
Title: Rajasthan University of Health and Sciences v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Rajasthan High Court has stayed the operation of the order of the single bench that allowed the Deepshikha Kala Sansthan (Regional Nursing College) to participate in the counselling for B.Sc. Nursing course for the academic session 2025-26 without having a valid No Objection Certificate and affiliation from the State Government and Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (“RUHS”).
While staying the entire counseling for the B.Sc. Nursing Course for the academic year 2025-26 until further orders the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta observed that ordinarily the Court would have hesitated, however, the order was passed to prevent deviations in the Nursing Courses and avoid creation of conflicting rights.
Title: Vijay Kumar Boyat S/o Shri Raju Boyat & Ors. v. Vaibhav Galriya, Principal Secretary & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that there can be no sympathy for encroachers, directing the the Additional Chief Secretary of the Urban Development and Housing Department to issue directions to the Municipal Corporation and Municipal Councils of various cities & towns to take appropriate steps for removing illegal encroachments made on the roads in the city/town-ship as well as on the footpaths.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit said, "Such drive for removing the encroachments should be undertaken at the State level and the encroachments should be dealt with in accordance with law. No sympathy can be extended to such encroachers and if it is found that any legal authority or police officials had allowed the encroachments, appropriate action against them may also be taken."
However, it added that before ensuing demolition of the encroachments, 7-8 days time should be given to the concerned encroachers.
Title: Suo Motu v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions
In the suo motu case concerning the collapse of ceiling and wall of a classroom, resulting in death of 7 children, the Rajasthan High Court restrained the State government from the using dilapidated school buildings/rooms, further directing the state to make alternative arrangements.
In July 2025, the Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the incident in one of the Government Schools in Rajasthan that resulted in death of 7 children, and had sought requisite reports from the State.
On August 22, 2025, the division bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, after hearing the counsels and looking at the reports available on record, directed the State to stop using the school building and rooms that were in dilapidated conditions till further orders.
Title: Public Against Corruption v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the operation of Urban Development and Housing Department's March 12 order, allegedly regularizing illegal colonies and encroachments set up on the public land in Jaipur which was acquired for Rajasthan Housing Board.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit further directed demolition and removal of such encroachments, and taking of appropriate action against the concerned officers who allowed such illegal constructions.
Rajasthan High Court Directs Asaram Bapu To Surrender In 3 Days, Refuses To Extend Interim Bail
Title: Asharam Alias Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday rejected the application moved by Asaram Bapu, who has been sentenced to life in a 2013-rape case, seeking extension of his interim bail on medical grounds.
A division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur reportedly took note of the self-styled godman's medical record and found that he is stable.
Accordingly, he has been directed to surrender in Central Jail on August 30.
Title: Ajay Shivpuri v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court appointed a Court Commissioner in a plea challenging State government's order permitting proposed installation of a dairy booth outside a private residence in Jaipur, where it was alleged that dairies are running a wholesale kirana shops or small restaurants
Considering the matter to be having “writ large effect”, the high court directed the Court Commissioner to inspect Bapu Nagar, Gandhi Nagar and other areas in Jaipur as mentioned in the plea and file a report in 7 days.
Justice Sameer Jain opined that the matter was concerned with the applicability of Section 152, BNSS, as it pertained to violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was the case of the petitioner that without taking NOC from any other concerned department like electricity, police, PWD etc, the dairy booth had been permitted to be installed in front of his private residence. Section 152, BNSS, provides for procedure for removal of public nuisance.
Title: Sadhana Shivhare v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has said that allotment of liquor shops in densely populated market was "prima facie" against Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution, and directed the State to furnish an explanation with respect to such allotment and submit its Temperance Policy.
Justice Sameer Jain observed that as per Article 47 of the Constitution, the State shall make an attempt to prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which were injurious to health except for medicinal purposes. Furthermore, the petitioner had no vested right to sell liquor.
However, as the Court further highlighted, despite the Temperance Policy, the State had approved a location for the liquor shop in a public market.In this background, the Court directed the Commissioner of Excise Department and the Principal Secretary to appear in the next hearing and furnish the Temperance Policy.
September 2025
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.