Bazar NEW

Subscribe Premium

Home
/

High Courts
/

Rajasthan High Court
/
Rajasthan High Court Monthly...

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025

Nupur Agrawal

14 Sept 2025 5:00 PM IST

S. 2(2) Hindu Succession Act Is 'Barrier' For Tribal Women To Lay Claim Over Father's Property: Rajasthan High Court Suggests Amendment

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.

[O.5 R.17 CPC] Service Of Summons Is Incomplete Without Affixing Signatures Of Witnesses Residing Nearby: Rajasthan High Court

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.”

Certificate Issued By School Without Supporting Proof Not Enough Evidence To Determine Kidnapping Victim's Age: Rajasthan High Court

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"

Prior Sanction 'Not Unbridled Shelter' To Protect Corrupt Govt Officials In Face Of Prima Facie Audio/ Video Evidence: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Accommodation For 'Karwa Chauth' Granted To Female Candidates In 2021 Patwari Recruitment Exam

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.

Certificates Issued By Indian Body Builders Federation Valid For Recruitment As It Is Recognised By Sports Ministry: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Rajasthan High Court Fines School ₹1 Lakh For Sending Incorrect Exam Form To CBSE, Issuing Erroneous Transfer Certificate To Student

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.

Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Woman Booked For Double Murder Citing Welfare Of Her 5-Yr-Old Child

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.

Defaulter Can't Escape Liability Citing Term End: Rajasthan HC Upholds Inquiry Against Official Initiated After Village Became Municipality

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".

Rajasthan High Court Urges Centre To Revisit Citizenship Laws For Children Born Abroad To Indian Parents

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.

Rajasthan HC Declines Plea By Minor Rape Victim's Father To Terminate Her Pregnancy, Cites Unwillingness & Unborn Child's Right To Life

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.”

Blacklisting Order For Future Tenders Exceeding Reasons In Showcause Notice Violates Right To Carry On Business: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Permanent Lok Adalats Have No Jurisdiction On Matters Relating To Imposition Or Rate Of Tax: Rajasthan High Court

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.

'Being Blind Can't Destroy Dreams': Rajasthan High Court Forms Panel T o Help MBBS Student Who Lost Vision After 2 Years To Finish Course

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.”

'Attempt To Spoil Future': Rajasthan High Court Expresses Shock At School For Failing To Send Student's Improvement Exam Form To CBSE

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.

Filing Application U/S 10 Of Commercial Courts Act With S.34 Petition Fulfills Requirements U/S 34 Of A&C Act: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Rajasthan High Court Permits Woman To Appear In Exam For Widow Candidates, Despite Objection By Deceased's Subsequent Wife

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".

Excessive Delay In Deciding Trademark Registration Harmful: Rajasthan High Court Orders Registrar To Decide All Pending Pleas Expeditiously

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.

Rajasthan High Court Condones 700-Day Delay By Trust In Filing Audit Report, Cites 'Charitable Activities' & Lack Of Malafide Intention

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.

Person Seeking Scholarship For Further Education Can't Be Expected To Resign From Job Prior To Selection: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Once Village Is Declared 'Urban Area' In Master Plan, State Can Permit Land Conversion For Development Of Such Area: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Additional Evidence Plea Filed During Pendency Of Appeal To Be Heard During Final Hearing: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Govt Cannot Indefinitely Postpone Panchayat Elections, Contrary To Article 243-E Of Constitution: Rajasthan High Court

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.

O.21 R.32(5) CPC | Executing Court Can Restore Possession Of Property If Judgment-Debtor Violates Injunction Decree: Rajasthan High Court

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".

Employee Kept In Custody For Criminal Charges & Ultimately Acquitted Can't Be Denied Wages For Detention Period: Rajasthan HC

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".

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Challenge Against State Amendment Imposing New Motor Vehicle Tax On “Sleeper Bus”

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.

Institutional Preference During Admissions Applicable On All Students, Can't Apply Distinction Based On Passing Year: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Website Instructions On Eligibility Which Form Part Of Advertisement Are Integral To Recruitment Process: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Rajasthan High Court Denies State's Plea To Withdraw Case Against BJP MLA Accused Of Forging Class 10 Marksheet To Contest Elections

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"

NEET-UG 2025 | Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To OBC-NCL Candidate In State List Treated Under General Category For Admission

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.

Rajasthan High Court Denies Termination Of 32-Week Pregnancy To Speech & Hearing Impaired Minor, Cites Medical Report

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".

Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Ex-Minister Accused Of Taking ₹2 Crore Bribe To Award Illegal Tenders Under Jal Jeevan Mission

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".

Rajasthan High Court Cancels 2021 SI Recruitment For Irregularities; Takes Suo-Motu Notice Of Systemic Malpractices In RPSC

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.

Other Developments

Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo-Motu Cognizance Of Dog Bites, 'Menace' Of Stray Animals On Public Roads

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".

Rajasthan High Court Orders Removal Of Stray Dogs & Other Animals From Roads, Municipal Bodies May Lodge FIR If Obstructed

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.

Rajasthan High Court Extends Asaram Bapu's Interim Bail Till August 29, Orders His Medical Examination

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.

S.102 CrPC | Can Bank Accounts Be Seized Merely On A Letter From Police? Rajasthan High Court Seeks Inputs From Bar Members

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.

'No Sympathy For Encroachers': Rajasthan High Court Directs State Authorities To Remove Illegal Constructions, Warns Police Of Action

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.

Rajasthan High Court Restrains State Govt From Using Dilapidated School Buildings, Rooms; Directs Alternative Arrangements For Students

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.

'Public Exchequer Will Suffer': Rajasthan High Court Stays GO Prima Facie Regularizing Illegal Colonies, Orders Action Against Errant Officials

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.

Pertains To Violation Of Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Rajasthan High Court Stays Installation Of Dairy Booth Outside Private Residence

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.

Liquor Shop Allotment In Densely Populated Market Prima Facie Violates Articles 21 & 47 Of Constitution: Rajasthan High Court

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.