Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 256

NOMINAL INDEX

Kailash v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222

Kiran Yadav v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 223

Kumari Neelam v Jai Prakash Natani & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 224

Shivsingh Meena v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 225

M/s My Own Eco Energy Private Limited v Union of India & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 226

Babu Lal v the State of Rajasthan & Other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 227

Bhomaram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 228

M/S Soltown Infra Private Limited & Ors. v. Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 229

Shakti Singh & Ors. v Smt. Raj & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 230

Roshan Yadav v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 231

Bhaya Lal Bhagriya vs Union Of India and others; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 232

Dharmendra Kumar Bhardwaj v Ramesh Jain & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 233

Anuj Kumar Kumawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 234

Suresh v Dhruv Narayan Purohit & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 235

Tulachhi wife of Dhanraj v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 236

Jitendra Goyal v Registrar of Trade Marks; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 237

Firm Jehtmal & Sons v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 238

Sagar Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 239

Munesh Gurjar v the State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 240

Prakash Manda v The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 241

Angel Soni v The National Testing Agency & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 242

Purnamal Verma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 243

Anand Prakash Agarwal & Ors. v The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 244

Sunil Kumar Gupta v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 245

Bipul Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 246

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Munni & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 247

Rasida Khatoon v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petition; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 248

Harish Madhan v Kshema Power and Infrastructure co. pvt. ltd.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 249

Ibra v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 250

Ashok Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 251

Sammaan Capital v District Magistrate & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 252

Arun Fatehpuria & Anr. v Tarachand Tholia; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 253

Pushp Chand v Smt. Madhu Rathi; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 254

Suresh Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 255

Mohammad Muslim v The Union of India; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 256

Orders/Judgments of the Month

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 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.

'Judicial Verdicts Not Like Sand Dunes, Can't Be Unsettled Lightly': Rajasthan High Court Criticizes Parties Re-Opening Concluded Judgments

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.

Rajasthan High Court Enhances Compensation Of Paralysed Road-Accident Victim To ₹1.9 Cr, Says It's Not Charity But Moral Necessity

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.

Rajasthan High Court Extends 'Community Service' Under BNSS As Bail Condition, Asks Accused To Serve Swach Bharat Abhiyan

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."

'Drop-In Fuel' Akin To Petroleum & An Essential Commodity, Centre's 2005 Order Regulating Retail Sale Will Apply: Rajasthan High Court

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.

'Grave Offences Of Public Importance': Rajasthan High Court Denies Relief To 3 Booked For Forging Degrees, Impersonation In Govt Exam

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.

Applicant For Fair Price Shop Has Statutory Remedy Against Grant Of License To Opposite Party, Must Be Supplied Order Copy: Rajasthan High Court

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.

State Doesn't Need Statutory Power To Blacklist A Fraud Committing Firm From Entering Into Contractual Relationship With It: Rajasthan HC

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.

Revenue Courts Deciding Land Ownership, Tenancy Rights Without Any Judicial Training: Rajasthan High Court Calls For Structural Reforms

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.

NEET-UG 2025: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Plea For Re-Test/ Bonus Marks Over Power Outage, Other Alleged Deficiencies At Exam Centers

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.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Centre To Issue NOC For Bringing Mortal Remains Of Indian-Origin Man From UK

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.

Rajasthan High Court Flags Pending Appeals Before Rent Tribunals Affecting Decree Holders, Directs Priority Disposal Of Eviction Matters

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.

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Law Student's Plea Alleging Exam Question On 'Ram Janmbhoomi' Judgment Hurt Religious Sentiments

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.”

Successive Pleas For Eviction Based On Bonafide Not Barred Even If Earlier Suit On Same Grounds Was Rejected: Rajasthan HC

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.

Provisions Under New Excise Policy Only Applicable To New Applications, Not On Pre-Existing Godowns: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Trademark Cannot Be Removed From Official Records Without Notice, Even If Not Renewed For 7 Years After Expiration: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Party Can't Suffer Consequences Due To Counsel's Negligence: Rajasthan High Court Restores Criminal Appeal Dismissed For Non-Appearance

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.”

Termination After 15 Yrs Of Service For Ineligibility Due To Having 3 Children Is Against Purpose Of Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan HC

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.

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Former Jaipur Mayor's Plea Against Suspension In Alleged Corruption Case

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.

Termination Order Questioning Employee's 'Integrity' Carries Stigma, Requires Enquiry: Rajasthan High Court

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.”

Can't Disturb Admission Process: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Student's Plea For Time To Improve Class 12 Marks Before IIT Counselling

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 12^th 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.”

Elected Official Represents People's Voice: Rajasthan High Court Flags Removal Of Panchayat Members Without Adherence To Procedure

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.

Promotion To HC's Assistant Registrar Based On Merit, Seniority Of Candidates Can't Be Sole Criteria: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Rajasthan High Court Slams State For Denying Salary To Disabled Asst Engineer, Directs Extension Of Benefits To All PwD Govt Employees

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. 

Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Juvenile In Murder Case, Says Allegation Of 'Mercilessly' Causing Death Needs Cautious Approach

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.

Major Dependant Children Entitled To Compensation Under MV Act, Dependency Of Married Children To Be Seen Carefully: Rajasthan High Court

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.

No Negative Parity: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Municipal Official's Plea Claiming Co-Signatory To Illegal Title-Deeds Was Not Acted Against

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.

Party Entitled To Court Fee Refund When Settlement Happens At Appellate Stage: Rajasthan High Court Orders Issuance Of Refund Certificate

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.”

No Right To 'Paralyse' District Judiciary: Rajasthan High Court Says Mass Leave By Staff Illegal, Issues Directions

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.

Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Teachers Demoted On Ground Of 1-Year Certificate Course Not Considered Equivalent To Degree Course

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"

DM's Adjudication On Borrowers' Claims In Application U/S 14 SARFAESI Act 'Totally Unwarranted': Rajasthan HC Flags Non-Compliance Of SC Orders

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.

Payment Of Rent From Partnership Firm's Account Doesn't Make It A Tenant When Tenancy Was Entered Into By Partners Individually: Rajasthan HC

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.

No Indulgence To Inactive Party: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Restore Suit Withdrawn On Compromise Citing Parties' Silence For 20 Yrs

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.

Ordering Police Custody Of Land Without Specific Duration In Absence Of Pending Case 'Illegal': Rajasthan High Court Quashes S.145 CrPC Order

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.

Pendency Of Criminal Case U/S 498A IPC Not Ground To Deny Permission To Travel Abroad For Haj: Rajasthan High Court

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.