Reportable Judgement

Reportable Judgments of July ,2023

1. CW / 3444 / 2013 (JAGIDSH PRASAD Vs. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOV ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 25/07/2023

Petitioner challenging adverse entries in ACRs for both posts on promotion from Add. RTO to RTO after representation rejected.Held;Purpose of ACRs for Govt. Servants is to improve their performance,discipline,public service quality.Officers must avoid arbitrariness.Incompetent Reviewing Officer filled petitioner's ACR;adverse entries invalid as per APAR instructions.Duty of Reporting & Reviewing Officers:Unbiased assessment of subordinate's performance, avoiding personal bias.Petition allowed.

Judgement Link

2. CW / 21 / 2020 (VIJAY SINGH S/O SHRI RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 21/07/2023
Petitioners challenging orders declining them benefit of notional increment on ground that they retired one day before increment was due. Held; Once an employee completes one year of service, they should receive annual increment. Denying it upon retirement is unjust. Denial of entitled benefits without valid reason is arbitrary; scheme must be read as a whole. Directed respondents to reconsider case, grant notional increment, refix pension, and pay arrears within three months. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

3. CW / 3488 / 2018 (DR MANI KANT KOTHARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 21/07/2023
Petitioner challenges order of respondent bank denying pensionary benefits on retirement on grounds that petitioner was contractual employee. Held; Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and his services continued with respondent Bank in capacity of contractual employee, hence, his case does not fall within purview of Clause 4 of Pension Regulation 1990, hence, he is not entitled to claim pensionary benefits. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

4. CW /9900 / 2005 (PAWAN PRAJAPATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 19/07/2023
Petitioner, a BSF constable, challenging order of dismissal after overstaying leave by 77 days. Issue in present petition was whether any administrative order is required to be supported by reasons. Held; reasons should be recorded while passing administrative order, such reasons dispel all doubts about arbitrariness of authority. Unless, law empowers authority in such a way that reasons are to be withheld, there is general duty to given reason by such authority. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

5. CW / 13191 / 2022 (KRISHNA SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 18/07/2023
Petitioners challenging orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses have been cancelled on direction of Principal Secretary, Mining Department. Held; action of state govt. is highly discriminatory, is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and govt. failed to exercise degree of fairness. Mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary. Petition Allowed.
Judgement Link

6. CW / 3401 / 2023 (BHANWAR LAL BHADIYAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 17/07/2023
Petitioner challenging notices of Local Military Authority prohibiting him raise his construction on his own patta-suda/JDA approved land.Held;construction in question is within 40mtrs of Defence Establishment,it would result in compromising confidential data of Defence, which cannot be permitted.State may strategically restrict Defense Establishments with their unique sanctity,as they cannot be breached only on basis of other local laws,which are applicable in the urban areas.Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

7. SAW / 236 / 2017 (PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK Vs. THE JUDGE, CENTRAL GOVT I T C L AND ANR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/07/2023
Special appeal writ challenging order of Ld. Single Judge, dismissing petition challenging award of Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court (Cent. Govt.), Jaipur, whereby termination of respondent was found to be in violation of Sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Held; it would not appropriate for this Court to give findings in respect of factual aspect, where parties have already adduced their evidence before Tribunal and same are examined and upheld by Single Bench.Special Appeal Dismissed.
Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of June ,2023

1. CW / 11257 / 2022 (THAR POLY PAPER INDUSTRIES LLP Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD)

Date of Order/Judgment: 02/06/2023
Issue was Whether petitioners manufacturing of plastic laminated papers is in violation of ban on single-use plastic commodities, as, Raj. SPC Board directed closure of petitioner's business. Held; Sec.3,5 and 6 of Environment Protection Act, 1986, would empower Central Govt. to issue directions pertaining to ban on single-use plastic items. Purposive interpretation of notification issued to included raw materials of paper cups with a plastic laminated paper cups is warranted. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

2. SAW / 179 / 2010 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PALIRAM CHARITY TRUST)

Date of Order/Judgment: 01/06/2023
Appeal challenges order of Ld. Single Judge setting aside Revenue Board, Ajmer directive to transfer land to petitioner-trust, with conditions. Held; issue of title falls under jurisdiction of civil court U/S 259 of Raj. Land Revenue Act,1956. Revisional power U/S 82 of Act has time limit of 1yr from date of order to be revised. Order of Ld. Single Judge does not bind the parties, allowing them to pursue remedies as per the law. Appeal partly allowed.
Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of May ,2023

1. CW / 1828 / 2022 (M/S PANCHMUKHI STONE PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 30/05/2023
Petitioner assailing orders of Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority respectively to the extent of stipulation regarding payment of interest at 15%per month. Held; no provision in Raj. MMC Rules,2017 permitting authorities under Mining Act to levy interest as high as 15%per month. Appellate Authority slapped huge demand without issuing any notice to petitioner is clear violation principles of natural justice. Dead rent cannot be demanded when mining working is not undertaken. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

2. CW / 1015 / 2023 (DEEPAK SONI Vs. ANAMIKA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 26/05/2023
Petitioner assailing order of Family Court, rejecting application U/O 6 R 17 R/W Sec. 151 CPC. DNA test shows petitioner not the father. Divorce filed without adultery grounds, asserting right to DNA testing. Held; DNA Paternity Test Report cannot be used to set aside the conclusive presumption of paternity U/S 112 of Evidence Act. DNA Paternity Test should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, and best interest of child should be protected over sanctity of marriage. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

3. CW / 14044 / 2021 (CHINDER PAL SINGH S/O BALJEET SINGH VS THE CHIEF SECRETARY)

Date of Order/Judgment: 25/05/2023
Petitioner suffering from gender identity disorder and undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery. Petitioner applied for changing name and gender in service record but even after 3 yrs changes were not been made. Held; Transgender Persons (PR) Act, 2019 is social beneficial legislation recognizing rights of transgender persons to live life with dignity, prohibiting discrimination against them. Denial of petitioner's request would violate their FR U/A 14, 21 of Constitution. Petition disposed.
Judgement Link

4. CW / 17915 / 2019 (JOTA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 24/05/2023
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner during his tenure as Patwari. Pending such proceedings, DPC's considered case for promotion for 1999-00. Petitioner was granted promotion in 2014 against vacancies of 2008-09. Held; petitioner was promoted against vacancy year 2008-09, unamended Rule 171-A of Rules, 1957 should apply. Directed after correction of seniority list, petitioner shall be conferred all consequential benefits, including promotion. Petition disposed.
Judgement Link

5. CW / 7612 / 2015 (SMT. SHASHI BALA MEENA WIFE OF SHRI NARSI LAL MEENA VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK)

Date of Order/Judgment: 24/05/2023
Petitioner transferred 24 times during her service with respondent Bank and complied with all orders. Respondent Bank passed an order for compulsory retirement due to petitioner's absence of six months. Held; petitioner was not given proper opportunity to defend herself and enquiry was completed hastily. Punishment imposed on petitioner was disproportionate grossly in excess to allegations against her for proved misconduct of unauthorized absence for 6 months. Petition allowed partly.
Judgement Link

6. CW / 14655 / 2022 SHAMBHU LAL S/O BIRDILAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Date of Order/Judgment: 17/05/2023
Petitioner assailing judgment of CAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur vide which, Original Applications assailing their verbal termination orders were dismissed. Held; CAT did not err in rejecting claim of petitioners as their appointment was contractual in nature. Contractual employees have no vested right to continue on said post after expiry of contract period and theory of legitimate expectation cannot be advanced by contractual employees as State cannot constitutionally make such promise. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

7. CW / 7767 / 2020 (KEDAR LAL GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA LAL GUPTA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 17/05/2023
In spite of recommendations of Selection Committee,State Govt. has not appointed petitioner as Judicial Member of RSCDR Commission. Held; State Govt. has power subject to constitutional limitations to prevent abuses of power to accept/reject recommendations of Selection Committee.Any exercise of discretionary power must be based on relevant, objective criteria rather than on personal biases.Directed respondents for petitioners' appointment on said post, if he is found suitable.Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

8. CW / 7131 / 2022 (MANISH VS RAJ KUMAR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 16/05/2023
Petition assailing order of Ld. Rent Tribunal, Churu rejecting impleadment application U/S 21 of RC Act, 2001 R/W O1 R10 C.P.C.Held;Ld. Tribunal committed no error in rejecting application Impleadment of any third party in case pertaining to dispute between landlord and tenant is not permissible under law. Question of title to suit premises is not germane for decision of eviction suit.No person can compel plaintiff to allow such person to become co-plaintiff/defendant in suit.Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

9. CW / 7133 / 2022 (MANISH VS BHARAT KUMAR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 16/05/2023
Petition assailing order of Ld. Rent Tribunal, Churu rejecting impleadment application U/S 21 of RC Act, 2001 R/W O1 R10 C.P.C.Held;Ld. Tribunal committed no error in rejecting application Impleadment of any third party in case pertaining to dispute between landlord and tenant is not permissible under law. Question of title to suit premises is not germane for decision of eviction suit.No person can compel plaintiff to allow such person to become co-plaintiff/defendant in suit.Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

10. CW / 15517 / 2022 (BHAGWAN SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 16/05/2023
Petition assailing order of Exec. Dir., RSRTC Ltd. Jaipur, denying petitioners retiral benefits due to incomplete qualifying service on application of voluntary retirement. Held; Regulation 18(D)(2) of Orders, 1965 shows that employee who completes 20yrs of service or attains age of 45yrs, thereafter can seek voluntary retirement. Hence, service period of daily wages basis rendered by petitioner must considered for computation of period of 20yrs for granting retiral benefits.Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

11. HC / 15 / 2023 (MAHENDRA SON OF SHRI SHYORAM @ SHIVRAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 08/05/2023
Petitioner assailing order of preventive detention of Dist. Mag., Sikar approved by State Govt. and Advisory Board. Petitioner detained for 1yr based on involvement in heinous offences, and multiple criminal cases are pending. Held; there was no violation of provisions of Sec.10, 11 of RPA-SA Act, 2006, Advisory Board had considered case of petitioner within specified period, as number of cases pending against petitioner was sufficient to make case of preventive detention. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

12. SAW / 1273 / 2018 (THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2023
Case involves validity of decision taken by respondent lowering down percentile to extent of 10 percentile, to fill vacant seats in BDS. Held; decision of lowering down percentile and permitting admissions of students without qualifying NEET is not valid. Relaxation granted by colleges in question to those students who have secured much lower marks in NEET is not acceptable. College is liable to pay and deposit costs for granting admissions to appellants contrary to regulations.Petition disposed.
Judgement Link

13. CW / 13411 / 2011 (BAHADUR SINGH VS STATE OF RAJ AND ANR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 03/05/2023
Question to decide is whether on basis of judgment of acquittal in criminal case,person is entitled to automatic reinstatement in service or not. Held;this impugned question arises only when dismissal from service was based on conviction by criminal court within purview Art. 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India.Acquittal of petitioner cannot be treated as honorable acquittal; mere acquittal of government employee does not automatically entitle government servant to reinstatement.Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

14. CW / 18478 / 2011 (MAHESHWARI PUBLICE SCHOOL VS RAN NON GOV EDUCATION TRI ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 03/05/2023
Petition assailing judgment of RN-GEI Tribunal, Jaipur allowing appeal U/S 19 of RN-GEI Act, 1989 quashing termination order directing petitioner Institution to reinstate respondent back in service with all consequential benefits. Held; mere sending intimation/information to Dist. Edu. Off. about termination of respondent is not sufficient compliance of Sec.18 of Act, 1989 and R 39 of Rules, 1993 and no consent has been given by competent authority as per mandate of provisions.Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

15. CW / 17805 / 2019 (KHARTA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 02/05/2023
Whether action of respondents publishing and reviewing seniority list is contrary to Rule 171-A of Rules,1957. Held; Rule which has direct bearing on inter-se dispute between parties is amended Rule 171-A(2) providing that seniority of ILR shall be determined on basis of recruitment year /promotion on ILR post. Without laying challenge to seniority list and succeeding in such challenge, petitioners cannot claim that ILRs of batch No.24 be not given promotion before them. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

16. CW / 6969 / 2006 (LEELA DEVI AND ORS. VS AMAR CHAND AND ANR.)

Date of Order/Judgment: 02/05/2023
Petitioner objected finding of Trial court that document in question was family settlement and did not require registration, therefore could be taken into evidence. Held; document in question was family settlement which does not requires registration, therefore admissible in evidence. Memorandum of family arrangements does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable property or not fall within purview of sec. 17(2) of Reg. Act. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

17. CMA / 46 / 2002 (THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS SMT. SAMYA AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 01/05/2023
Appeal assailing judgment of MACT, Gulabpura camp at Shahapura, dist. Bhilwara by which the tribunal has held only insurance company liable to make the payment of compensation amount to the claimants. Held; Breach of policy condition as per Sec.149(2)(a)(ii), has to be proved to have been committed by insured for avoiding liability by insurer. When proved Insurance Co. directed to pay compensation to claimants and recover same from owner of vehicles. Appeal partly allowed.
Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of April ,2023

1. CMA / 1482 / 2019 (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SURVEY AND INVESTIGATION VS M/S RAMEWSHWAR LAL MANARAM)

Date of Order/Judgment: 28/04/2023
Appeal assailing order of Commercial Court, Jodhpur whereby objections U/S 34 of AC Act, 1996 preferred by appellant against award of Ld. Arbitrator have been rejected. Held; Court below rightly held that none of objection raised fell within Sec. 34 of Act, hence, award did not deserve any interference. Well settled principle is that failure on part of Arbitrator to decide in accordance with terms of contract governing parties, would certainly attract Patent illegality ground. Appeal rejected.
Judgement Link

2. CW / 5132 / 2021 (PAPAPURI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 28/04/2023
PIL assailing validity of respondent's action issuing directions to record all government lands situated in 9 revenue villages of Tehsil Rohat, District Pali, in favour of JPMIA Development Authority. Held; vesting of lands by operation of law U/S 27 of RSIR Act in Regional Development Authority which includes Gocher lands also as same is not saved from vesting by operation of law. Equivalent area of land has been proposed to be reserved for pasturage. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

3. WRW / 89 / 2022 (RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS DHANNA LAL JAT S/O SHRI HARI NARAYAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 27/04/2023
Petitioner RSRTC filed review petition seeking to review order allowing writ petition filed by respondent, directing RSRTC to grant respondent benefits of GPF Scheme and GPF Pension from the date of his retirement. Held; review petition can be entertained only when there is an error apparent on face of record, Court cannot reappreciate evidence to arrive at different conclusion even if 2 views are possible in a matter. Petitioner has failed to make out any case of review of order. Petition disposed.
Judgement Link

4. CW / 14864 / 2015 (SAVITA VS R S P C BOARDANDORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 27/04/2023
Question was whether candidate not having 5yrs experience on Junior Environmental Eng. post is entitled to get promotion Assistant Environmental Eng. post merely because his/her appointment was delayed by recruitment authority. Held; petitioner is lacking requisite experience, hence, not entitled for promotion against the vacancies of 2015-16. Power to relax rules lies with state govt. i.e., Dept. of personnel and administrative reforms who has not been made party. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

5. CW / 8382 / 2013 (ANJANA KUMARI MEENA VS C M D J METRO AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 27/04/2023
Petitioner challenges entire selection process on ground that posts were not advertised as per reservation policy, as, fifty posts were advertised, but only five posts were reserved, in violation of reservation policy which requires 12% of posts to be reserved for ST candidates. Held; selected candidates not impleaded as party. Petitioner cannot challenge criteria of reservation prescribed in advertisement after participating in selection process. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

6. SAW / 1650 / 2019 (MUKESH KUMAR SAINI S/O LATE SHRI BIRDI CHAND SAINI VS RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION)

Date of Order/Judgment: 24/04/2023
Appeal assailing order of Ld. Single Judge dismissing writ petition at admission stage seeking compassionate appointment. Held; Rule 7(3) of Rules,1996 specifically provides that before dependent is appointed, Appointing Authority has to satisfy that dependent is fit for appointment in Govt. service looking to general conditions prescribed. Regulations,1983 has not provided any disqualification of having more than two children, hence compassionate appointment cannot be ignored. Appeal allowed.
Judgement Link

7. CW / 4419 / 2020 (RANJEET SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 05/04/2023
In spite of direction of Court to list case, said case not listed by the Registry. Application U/Art. 226(3) of Constitution filed by respondent not tagged with the record of the case till hearing. Held; Art. 226(3) has II parts-1st part deals with circumstances while 2nd part provides for consequence. Since, application U/A 226(3) has not been placed for consideration of court, interim order remains in currency. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

8. CMA / 1956 / 2002 (NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS SMT RUDI AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/04/2023
Question was Whether Insurance Company is liable to cover third party risk, when insured fails to pay premium, as cheque issued by him towards the premium is dishonoured. Held; vehicle was not insured on date of accident; Tribunal has committed an error in deciding issue against Insurance Company. Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation, Owner and driver of vehicle in question, to pay amount awarded by Tribunal after adding enhanced amount. Application disposed.
Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of March,2023

1. CW / 6843 / 2007 (MOHAN LAL SONI VS JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA SON OF SHRI GILLOMALJI)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/03/2023
Petition against order of Rent Appellate Tribunal setting aside eviction of tenant. Held- Petition maintainable, Rent Tribunal rightly ordered eviction of tenant on account of default in payment of arrears of rent, subsequent purchaser entitled to obtain decree of eviction when default committed previous to purchase. No subsequent notice is required under Section 9(a) of RRCA. Order by Appellate Tribunal quashed, set aside, Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

2. CW / 11118 / 2016 (SMT HEMLATA BAXI VS SMT KUSUM GUPTA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/03/2023
Petition assailing order of Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby Tribunal upheld findings of Rent Tribunal, Jaipur allowing eviction petition filed U/S 9 of Raj. RC Act, 2001 based on bonafide requirement and non-payment of rent. Held: Tribunals passed justified orders qua their findings as well settled position of law is that eviction proceedings under Act, ground of bonafide requirement is recurring cause, hence, landlord is not precluded from instituting fresh proceedings. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

3. CW / 4810 / 2010 (M/S RAJ STATE MINES VS EMPLOYEES PVO FUND ANR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/03/2023
Petition filed against order passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Delhi and against order of Assistant PF Commissioner, Jaipur U/S 14B of Employees Provident Fund demanding damages with interest on account of delay. Held: breach on part of petitioner did not flow from deliberate defiance of law. Hence, despite granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty is made out against petitioner, proceedings initiated held to be untenable. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

4. CW / 352 / 2008 (JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD VS RAJENDRA PRASAD AND ANR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/03/2023
Petition challenging awards by Permanent Lok Adalat confirming its interim order of restoring connection on deposit of Rs.15000. Court held PLA only empowered to assist parties in amicable settlement, no authority to decide dispute or pass order on merits, Present dispute pertains to offence under Electricity Act, 2003, PLA failed to conduct conciliation, there is specific bar contained in sub-section (8) of Section 22C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, orders quashed, petitions allowed.
Judgement Link

5. CW / 9798 / 2016 (AMAR CHAND ANDANR VS JITENDRA AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/03/2023
Court held-Board of Revenue in revision rightly held that issue before it stands adjudicated as proceedings before Board of Revenue are summary, once rights of parties crystallized before Trial Court, nothing survives in revision. Land and title of property can only be decided by competent Civil Court. BOR rightly relied on dictum of Civil Court deciding title and succession after consideration of facts. Principle of Natural Justice not violated. Order by BOR upheld. Petition meritless, dismissed.
Judgement Link

6. CW / 13103 / 2022 (DR. H.L. ARORA VS DR. GURDEEP SINGH S/O SHRI GYAN SINGH)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/03/2023
Petition against order allowing application u/O 33 R1 CPC. Held- Petitioner made party to suit by way of summons, after application filed u/O 33 R1 allowed, mandate of O33R2,5, 6 bypassed. Writ jurisdiction can be invoked in violation of principles of natural justice. Proper inquiry must be conducted by Chief Ministerial Officer for ascertaining indigency. Definition of term "sufficient means" u/R 1, to be analysed strictly. Impugned order set aside, directed to consider matter afresh, Allowed.
Judgement Link

7. CW / 16985 / 2010 (UTTAM DISTILLERIES LTD VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/03/2023
Whether petitioner prevented from abiding by terms of allotment letter, lease deed force majeure? Held-argument of lack of approach road, pending PIL, delay due to NOC's merely excuses, failed to abide terms of time bound allotment, payment of last instalment, failed to complete construction in time, never intended to follow, set up industrial project on allotment basis, mandatory condition not complied, misrepresented facts, played fraud on Court, cost of 20 lakhs imposed, Dismissed.
Judgement Link

8. CFA / 1 / 2023 (RAJASTHAN STATE SHRIGANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS AJEET SINGH)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/03/2023
Appeal preferred against order of ADJ No.2, Jodhpur Metro, whereby application U/O VII Rule 11 CPC of defendant was allowed as consequence of which suit of the plaintiffs-appellants for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction was dismissed. Held; it is clear on record that present plaintiff was not party to sale-deed of which cancellation has been sought for. Meaning thereby, he was not the executant of the document of which the cancellation has been sought. Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Link

9. CW / 15025 / 2022 (SUKHENDRA PRASAD S/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 28/03/2023
Petitioner challenging rejection of his candidature for appointment on LDC post on basis of his certificate of Polytechnic diploma (Civil) has not been treated as equivalent qualification to Senior Secondary. Held; candidature of petitioner on basis of his qualification of polytechnic diploma (civil) issued by the Raj. BTE, Jodhpur, and on his experience certificate, is entitled to be considered on merit in SC category for appointment on LDC-2013 post. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

10. CW / 620 / 2020 (GEETA DEVI VS STATE OF RAJ.)

Date of Order/Judgment: 28/03/2023
Prayer to recall earlier interim order passed in present petition. Court- Petitioner, her counsel played fraud upon Court by filing a fresh petition on same facts, grounds, reliefs, stating that Co-ordinate Bench did not deem appropriate to grant ex-parte interim order while granting interim order in other 2 cases. Earlier petition withdrawn, solely with a view solely to file a fresh petition. Interim order recalled, petition dismissed as an attempt to mislead Court, being barred by resjudicata.
Judgement Link

11. CW / 12910 / 2016 (DR. SS TAK VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.)

Date of Order/Judgment: 27/03/2023
Petitioner served as member of RPSC, Raj. for full term of six years and getting pension of Rs. 6000 per annum. Vide Notification, Regulations had been amended and retrospective effect has been given but petitioner was not given benefit as argued that notification can't be given retrospective effect. Held that notification should be given hormonic and purposive interpretation, states stand cannot be countenanced. Petition allowed with all consequential benefit to petitioner.
Judgement Link

12. SAW / 869 / 2018 (SECRETARY GRAMIN VIKAS AND PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT SECRETARIAT, VS KEDAR LAL SEN S/O SHRI GANPAT LAL SEN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 27/03/2023
Special appeal preferred challenging order of Ld. Single Judge, whereby respondent-employee has been denied benefit of regularization of services but was granted minimum pay of Class-IV employee. Question to decide was whether the respondent-employee has rightly been given relief of grant of minimum pay of Class-IV employee or not. Court reiterated principle of law that if an employee has worked for equal hours as any other employee, such employee may raise claim of similar wages. Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Link

13. CW / 7062 / 2022 (M/S CHETAK ENTERPRISES LTD. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX)

Date of Order/Judgment: 20/03/2023
Petition assailing issuance of notice U/S 148 of IT Act and re-assessment proceedings for year 2018-19 by respondents against petitioner. Held; notices have been issued, after considering the objections raised by petitioner. If petitioner has any grievance on merits thereafter, same has to be agitated before Assessing Officer in re-assessment proceedings. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

14. CW / 16789 / 2022 (SURENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI GIRRAJ SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 17/03/2023
Petitioner has challenged his suspension order and order passed by S.P., Bharatpur, declining to revoke suspension of petitioner, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry under Rule 13 of CCA Rules, 1958. Court opined that continuation of suspension order is unjustified when disciplinary inquiry has already been culminated, hence, to continue the suspension of petitioner, who is at verge of retirement is arbitrary. Suspension order is quashed. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

15. CW / 9387 / 2022 (YOGESH KUMAR SAINI S/O SAMAY SINGH SAINI VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 14/03/2023
Petition assailing denial of appointment to petitioner even after securing more marks than cut-off under PH category. Candidature was rejected ignoring disability certificate produced by petitioner and relying on disability certificate issued by Medical Board constituted by respondents. Relying upon medical board constituted under direction of High Court respondents directed to issue appointment order to petitioner on post of Teacher PH category with all notional benefits. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

16. CW / 14681 / 2019 (BADRI RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 14/03/2023
Court - Employee duly selected, taken in services expelled in disregard of principle- Audi alterem partem. Art.14,16 COI infringed. Neither false declaration nor non-disclosure of case against him at time application form/police verification. While furnishing details of criminal case on getting appointment, disclosed fact of FIR. Respondents got character verification done, being cognizant allowed to join. Impugned order of removal illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, liable to be quashed.
Judgement Link

17. CW / 17796 / 2022 (SITA RAM JAKHAR S/O SHRI KALYANMAL JAKHAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 14/03/2023
Petition to direct award of 5 marks for RS-CIT Certificate, to accord appointment on post of Constable General Non-TSP in OBC (NCL) category. Held- petitioner has special education of computer aptitude (RS-CIT), eligible for 5 marks entitled u/R 30 of Rajasthan Home Guard Subordinate Service Rules, 2021 and Clause 14 of advertisement. Selection Board assessed, opined petitioner to be in higher merit to last cut off marks, entitled to be selected in final merit list. Directed to appoint, Allowed.
Judgement Link

18. CW / 16241 / 2022 (DINESH KUMAR KARAD SON OF SHRI RAM KALYAN KARAD VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 14/03/2023
Petition preferred with prayer for another chance for PET and to re-fix dates for their PET, as, they remained absent being unfit on the scheduled date for such test because of suffering from either serious sickness or injury. Court held that Clause 12 of standing order of recruitment is not applicable before completion of selection process and at the stage of appearing for PET. Hence, it does not come to rescue to the petitioner(s) for seeking deferment of PET. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

19. CW / 1618 / 2022 (SANJAY PANDE S/O LATE SHRI H.C. PANDE VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 14/03/2023
Challenge to RCSAT, Jaipur's order affirming transfer of petitioner from Additional Director (Development), Tourism Department, GOR, Jaipur to post of Additional Director, Tourist Reception Centre, Delhi. Court opined transfer order as arbitrary, illegal, not bonafide within parameters of law as noting by Dept. of Personnel that the post not a created post in RAS Cadre, post of Additional Director, Tourism Reception Centre, Delhi is temporary post of RAS cadre. Order quashed; petition allowed.
Judgement Link

20. WRW / 223 / 2022 (DR. TRIPTI SINGHVI D/O SHRI VIRENDRA RAJ SINGHVI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 03/03/2023
Review petition was filed after delay of 2264 days. Review petitioner seeking review of order passed by Court allowing petitions directing that petitioners should be granted study leave as their admission in PG course was after entering into service. Court finds itself unable to condone the hopeless delay of 2264 days in absence of the sufficient cause, review petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on face of record. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of February ,2023

1. CW / 6457 / 2007 (AMAR SINGH VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 28/02/2023
Court -taking essential prior recommendation from Medical Board for Government employee before getting treatment in an approved hospital as law not required when survival is prime consideration. Direction to reimburse expenditure incurred in treatment in an emergent situation at approved or recognized hospitals as per rules/policy. Directed Chief Secretary of State to constitute a High-Powered Committee in all Departments for quick disposal of such cases. Disposed.
Judgement Link

2. CW / 20864 / 2013 (MOHD SALEEM VS STATE HOME DEPARTMENT ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 24/02/2023
Petitioner was dismissed from service as criminal case instituted against him after application to recruitment of constable. sympathetic view raised in petition as petitioner has become over in age, has no other opportunity to participate in any other selection process. Court held that sympathy which is not within precincts of law, cannot be basis to grant something which is otherwise impermissible. relied sought cannot be granted by adopting sympathetic view. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

3. CW / 1841 / 2019 (POKAR RAM VS MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL CUM SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE)

Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2023
Whether gift deed of transfer of property ought to contain explicit condition providing basic amenities, basic physical needs to transferor to attract S.23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. Court-explicit condition to provide basic amenities, physical needs to be incorporated in deed, in absence not to be declared as null, void. No explicit condition mentioned, deed registered out of love. Impugned order has no reasons recorded for invoking jurisdiction. Allowed.
Judgement Link

4. CW / 8228 / 2009 (NARAYAN SHANKAR UPADHYAYA VS R R V P N, LTD)

Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2023
Issue involved in petition is whether the petitioner can withdraw his resignation after its acceptance, petitioner resigned from post of overseer (Electrical) and same was accepted. Then petitioner applied for reinstatement of his service on grounds of resignation forwarded mistakenly. Court opined that word resignation means relinquishment of one's own right in relation to an office. Resignation once accepted, cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. Petition dismissed.
Judgement Link

5. CW / 382 / 2022 (MANISH KUMAR ALORIA S/O SHRI KAILASH CHAND ALORIA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 22/02/2023
Spate of controversy is that RSS Board notified for 197 posts of MVSI to be appointed in Transport Department. Further office order issued declaring that candidates having higher educational qualification than notified qualification will also be eligible. Court quashed impugned order issued by RSSB; directed RSSB to prepare the final result on merit, excluding degree holders in mechanical engineering and appointment be given by State as per merit list in accordance with law. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

6. CW / 12010 / 2020 (DAYACHAND ARYA S/O SHRI CHETRAM ARYA VS Q)

Date of Order/Judgment: 17/02/2023
Petition to direct respondents to pay gratuity, other retrial benefit with interest, benefit of 7th pay commission, sanction pensionary benefit. This court cited Apex Court, Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 cleared that retiral dues because documents were not received by any department from other department cannot be withhold. Action of authority unfounded, virtually arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law. Directed to release all retiral benefits with interest. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

7. CW / 2020 / 2023 (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS SARDAR SINGH SON OF SHUBHKAR SINGH)

Date of Order/Judgment: 16/02/2023
Petition filed to assail order of Labour Court No.2, Jaipur, dismissing Restoration Application of petitioner; declined to set aside ex parte award passed in favour of respondent for his reinstatement in service as daily wager. Court opined that for an award to become binding, it should be passed in compliance with principles of natural justice. This court is not satisfied that ex parte award was passed in compliance, impugned order and ex parte award stand set aside. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

8. CW / 8315 / 2022 (VISHNI W/O NARENDRA KUMAR MEENA VS MUTHRI DEVI W/O HARIKISHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 16/02/2023
Court ordering election of returned candidate (RC) as Sarpanch invalid, election petitioner (EP) declared as sarpanch challenged, RC declared pre-disqualified as has 3 children as per S.19(l) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act,1994. This Court - mere setting aside of election of RC does not make EP entitled to be elevated even if secured II highest votes. Order of election of EP as Sarpanch quashed as it was multi cornered contest. Challenge to Trial Court's order dismissed. Partly allowed.
Judgement Link

9. CW / 2800 / 2020 (BANSWARA SYNTEX LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 13/02/2023
The bone of contention in present petition is whether the place of removal should be considered as the factory gate or the Port of Export in case of exported goods. Court held that determinative factor as to when ownership of the goods is transferred from seller to buyer has to be considered in light of provisions of sales of goods Act, 1930. Export sale would fructify only when the goods are handed over to the shipping line whereafter, exporter would have no control. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

10. SAW / 560 / 2022 (UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN VS RAJESH KUMAR GOTHWAL S/O SHRI MATADEEN GOTHWAL)

Date of Order/Judgment: 10/02/2023
Appeal against order directing appellant to declare result as under scheme of Ordinance respondents entitled to an opportunity of readmission, appear in exam, directed to award degree. This Court- there is no provision allowing readmission in any of parts of B.Ed. Course, no benefit by ordinance to candidate not fulfilling minimum attendance, neither any statutory right in favour of petitioners, nor statutory obligation upon University, mandamus cannot be issued, petition dismissed, appeal allowed.
Judgement Link

11. CW / 11929 / 2018 (GOPI VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 09/02/2023
Petition filed to assail order of Board of Revenue, allowing appeal; upheld order of SDO who allowed application of state U/S175 of Raj. Tenancy Act,1955; terminating tenancy rights. Court remanded back matter to board to adjudicate afresh as board has categorically eluded addressal and consideration of certain germane contentions raised; no specific finding regarding question of possession of disputed land with original khatedars; as opposed to possession with subsequent purchaser. Petition disposed.
Judgement Link

12. CW / 9221 / 2006 (SURESH KUMAR BHARGAVA VS RAJ.STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BO)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2023
Petition to issue writ of mandamus to give effect Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Employees' Pension Regulations,1994 issued without publication in official gazette. Court-Regulations did not come into effect as was not published, so no right be claimed. No provision of pension for employees of Board when entered into services, so no benefit as fundamental right. Interference in policy decision not warranted, interference u/A 226 of COI in an administrative action is limited. Dismissed.
Judgement Link

13. CW / 7913 / 2005 (MAYO COLLEGE GENERAL COUNCIL AND VS SMT PUSHPA SISODIYA AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2023
Challenge to order by Raj. Non-Government Educational Institutional Tribunal quashing order of termination and directing reinstate. Citing (2018)18SCC2016 held that petitioner is financially unaided private institution, so no question of reinstatement of an employee, remedy is compensation as Management failed to comply legal requirement of obtaining consent of Director of Education in writing before termination. Court modified order, set aside reinstatement,15 lakhs compensation awarded. Disposed.
Judgement Link

14. CW / 4105 / 2006 (NARAYAN LAL SHARMA VS RAJ STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BO)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2023
Petition to issue writ of mandamus to give effect Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Employees' Pension Regulations,1994 issued without publication in official gazette. Court-Regulations did not come into effect as was not published, so no right be claimed. No provision of pension for employees of Board when entered into services, so no benefit as fundamental right. Interference in policy decision not warranted, interference u/A 226 of COI in an administrative action is limited. Dismissed.
Judgement Link

15. CW / 2662 / 2007 (MUKUT BEHARI MATHUR VS STATE)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2023
Petition to issue writ of mandamus to give effect Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Employees' Pension Regulations,1994 issued without publication in official gazette. Court-Regulations did not come into effect as was not published, so no right be claimed. No provision of pension for employees of Board when entered into services, so no benefit as fundamental right. Interference in policy decision not warranted, interference u/A 226 of COI in an administrative action is limited. Dismissed.
Judgement Link

16. CW / 9838 / 2007 (SMT TARAWATI SHARMA VS R S P C BOARD AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2023
Petition to issue writ of mandamus to give effect Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Employees' Pension Regulations,1994 issued without publication in official gazette. Court-Regulations did not come into effect as was not published, so no right be claimed. No provision of pension for employees of Board when entered into services, so no benefit as fundamental right. Interference in policy decision not warranted, interference u/A 226 of COI in an administrative action is limited. Dismissed.
Judgement Link

17. CW / 10139 / 2007 (RAJ PRADUSHAN NIYANTRAN MANDAL VS RAJ STATE POLLUTION CONTROL ANDA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2023
Petition to issue writ of mandamus to give effect Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Employees' Pension Regulations,1994 issued without publication in official gazette. Court-Regulations did not come into effect as was not published, so no right be claimed. No provision of pension for employees of Board when entered into services, so no benefit as fundamental right. Interference in policy decision not warranted, interference u/A 226 of COI in an administrative action is limited. Dismissed.
Judgement Link

18. SAW / 34 / 2023 (DINESH KHARADI VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 01/02/2023
Writ petition challenging transfer order being violative of service rules, filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of concealment of material fact i.e., the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Same order is assailed in this appeal. Court held that Ld. Single Bench was absolutely justified in rejecting the petition, transfer order in question satisfies the requirements of the Rules of 2011 and hence, the same valid in the eyes of law. Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of January ,2023

1. SAW / 987 / 2021 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED)

Date of Order/Judgment: 31/01/2023
Instant appeal preferred to assail order of Ld. Single judge directing appellants-State to execute mining lease in favour of Respondent-petitioner, handing over the possession to Respondent, while issuing ancillary directions. Court held that the direction of the Ld. Single Judge for grant of mining lease in favour of Respondent by excluding the area covered under charagah for mining activities based on undertaking given by Respondents does not warrant any interference. Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Link

2. CW / 12803 / 2019 (PRINCIPAL MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER VS BHARAT SINGH S/O SHRI BANWARI LAL)

Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2023
Court-Industrial Tribunal considered evidence and has rightly come to conclusion that services of employee were terminated without following procedure of law, violation of S.25F,25G, 25H of Act of 1947, court considered length of service of employee and awarded reinstatement with continuity in services,25 percent back wages. Quoted judgment of Apex Court Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja (Civil Appeal- 6890/2022). Labour Court has not committed error in passing award.No interference required. Dismissed
Judgement Link

3. CFA / 183 / 2008 (DEBI AND ORS. VS RAMESHWAR LAL AND ORS.)

Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2023
Appeal against suit decreed for declaration, cancellation of sale deed, permanent injunction. Court viewed specific documentary, oral evidence available on record, findings by Court below totally in consonance with evidence by parties, decision on issue-1 affirmed. Findings on Issue of revenue entries decided against plaintiffs as not within jurisdiction is right. Finding on adverse inference to be taken against party for non-production of documents admitted in possession affirmed. Decree affirmed.
Judgement Link

4. CW / 9151 / 2011 (NEMARAM GEHLOT VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.)

Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2023
Employee of PNB opting to join pension scheme was rejected, thus petition. Court- issue of intention to get voluntarily retired is clear as 3 months notice in terms of governing Rules given. Cognizance taken by authority, no rejection by bank, so voluntary retired and not resigned. Entitled for pension on voluntary retirement as per regulations of 1995 as completed 20 years on date of applying voluntary retirement. Petitioner entitled to be governed by Settlement and Circular of 2010. Allowed.
Judgement Link

5. CW / 3874 / 2022 (SANTOSH KUMAR NYOL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2023
Petitions filed for issuance of wait list according to Rule 277A of Raj. Pan. Raj Rules, 1996 against Teacher Gr. III post remained vacant. Court opined Rule provides for wait list equal to 50% of vacancies, said limit having already been complied with by Dept., it cannot be directed to keep on issuing wait list till all vacancies are not filled up. In exercise of judicial review, courts cannot substitute decision of Dept.; direct the candidates in waiting list to be appointed.Petition dismissed
Judgement Link

6. SAW / 575 / 2022 (RAJANI VS THE DIRECTOR AYURVED DEPARTMENT)

Date of Order/Judgment: 27/01/2023
Appeal against order dismissing petition seeking direction to treat appellant as an OBC(Female)Divorcee category, consider her claim on post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade. Court- clear language of circular makes it prospective, under amendment decision by State Government to accept certificates issued to candidate of respective category after cutoff date subject to filing of an affidavit. Retrospective application not acceptable, cannot claim any benefit on strength of circular. Dismissed.
Judgement Link

7. CW / 2679 / 2022 (RITEESH KUMAR JYOTISHI S/O BHAGIRATH PRASAD JYOTISHI VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 25/01/2023
Challenge to method of normalization adopted by Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Staff Selection Board, Jaipur to equalize difficulty level of different question papers in multi-sessioned exam for post of Patwari. Court- Board applied normalization uniformly after assistance of Expert Committee, it neither dehor 2019 rules nor is arbitrary and mala fide, Art.14,16 of COI not violated in preparing final result. Not inclined to quash provisional merit list, final merit list.Petition dismissed
Judgement Link

8. CW / 6812 / 2010 (THE MANAGING COMMITTEE MOHATA VS SHIV KUMAR SAHAL AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 25/01/2023
Petition filed to assail order passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, allowing application filed by respondent under Section 21 of the RN-GEI Act, 1989 directing petitioner to fix the pay scale of the respondent under the pay scale of 8000-13500 with arrears. Court finds no force in the submissions of the petitioner that the arrears of pay and selection scale have not been calculated by the Tribunal. Writ dismissed.
Judgement Link

9. CW / 15045 / 2019 (HEMRAJ S/O SHRI BHAGWANA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 24/01/2023
Order of punishment of censure, orders by appellant, Reviewing Authority challenged. Court- Disciplinary Authority concluded wrongly that role was there in not getting FIR registered, no evidence to show inaction of informing Higher Officials of alleged incident of theft, on assumptions concluded committal of perpetuated illegality, dereliction of duty. Order based on perverse finding. Role assigned and allegation levelled not at par, so cannot be punished. Orders set aside. Petition allowed.
Judgement Link

10. CW / 8015 / 2017 (SECRETARY ADMINISTRARTION R R V P N L VS RASHTRIYA BIJALI KARMACHARI UNION)

Date of Order/Judgment: 24/01/2023
Petition challenging award by Tribunal. Court- Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal recorded that similarly situated persons, if entitled for a particular pay scale, such benefit cannot be denied to respondent-on account of he being not a party in litigation. Tribunal while considering oral, documentary evidence, concluded that LDC, working earlier as Helper and if later appointed as LDC, were entitled for pay scale of Rs.580/-. No error committed by giving same relief to respondent. Dismissed.
Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of November ,2022

1. SAW / 1046 / 2022 (MADHU SAINI D/O B.S. SAINI VS RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES)

Date of Order/Judgment: 25/11/2022
Appeal from dismissal of petition. Issue being whether appellants can be given admission by Dental College in Master in Dental Surgery contrary to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2016) 7 SCC 353. Court -appellants did not undergo centralized counselling, well aware that their admission was irregular, illegal being in teeth of judgments. Admission by college was contrary to notification issued by authorities. No relief, intentional and deliberate violation cannot be condoned. Dismissed.
Judgement Link

2. COP / 12 / 1987 (R.O.C. VS M/S. SHIELD SHOE CO.)

Date of Order/Judgment: 24/11/2022
Official Liquidator requested to direct shareholder's LRs' to furnish separate POA as per Rajasthan Stamp Act, original share certificates, succession certificate. This Court - Interpretation of Rule 280 of Companies (Court) Rules,1959 will defeat object for which power given to settle claim, claimant not be deprived due payment, insistence of succession certificate may not be made in every case. Prayer by liquidator denied, asked to consider accepting indemnity bond, survivorship certificate.
Judgement Link

s
3. CMA / 4629 / 2017 (SANTOSH KUMAR VS HARKHAS AAM AND ANR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 17/11/2022
Appeal against denial of grant of succession certificate of property left by uncle of appellant. Claim based on Will. Court below refused stating that attesting witnesses on Will not examined, hence, not probated, thus refused. This Court- Mere fact that witnesses identified signature of testator, that testator signed in his presence, would not fulfill requirement of law. Appellant failed to prove execution in accordance of law. No relief on strength of Will. Impugned order upheld. Dismissed.
Judgement Link

4. CW / 12391 / 2022 (RAJNEESH LABANA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 17/11/2022
Petition seeking direction to consider names of petitioners for promotion in DPC for post of Senior Patwari for 2021-22 as senior, meritorious with consequential benefits. Court- as per directions by this Court petitioners accorded appointment and assigned seniority as per merit in terms of Recruitment 2015. Promotion is comprehended within 'seniority'. Giving of seniority but depriving of promotion based on seniority negates very purpose of according seniority. Petitioners entitled. Allowed.
Judgement Link

5. CW / 12557 / 2018 (KIRTI KACHHAWAHA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 16/11/2022
Petition seeking direction for grant of Higher Super Time Pay Scale Post in Rajasthan Accounts Services. Court-Respondents from earlier conduct for promotion have treated petitioner as duly appointed from 1992,unjustified if treated differently for Higher Super Time Scale.Eligibility from amended Notification that person of service to have completed 25 years of service.Words Actual Experience or Actual Working in service wrongly attracted. Not considering petitioner is wrong, arbitrary. Allowed.
Judgement Link

6. CMA / 512 / 2020 (YUSUF HUSSAIN @ GUDDU S/O TAFAZZUL HUSSAIN ZAIDI VS SMT. SABRA BEGUM W/O TAFAZZUL HUSSAIN ZAIDI)

Date of Order/Judgment: 14/11/2022
Appeal against refusal to set aside an ex parte preliminary decree and ex parte final decrees. This Court observed that appellant's reason of absence due to long treatment of ailing son supported by evidence and admission of respondents should have been accepted by court below. For substantial justice preliminary decree, final decree set aside. Appeal allowed with cost.
Judgement Link

7. SAW / 72 / 2022 (THE SECRETARY VS SANGEETA VARHAT)

Date of Order/Judgment: 10/11/2022
Whether an applicant with customary divorce entitled to apply in category of Divorcee Female without divorce decree by competent civil court granted before cut-off date. Court -Custom cannot supersede terms-conditions of recruitment process, cannot supplement process with candidate of various caste, religion, faith,communities. Terms framed to adhere to Art.14, 16 of COI. Exemption from presenting divorce decree cannot be sought. SAW 829/2017 held per incuriam. Orders set aside. Allowed.
Judgement Link

8. SAW / 193 / 2019 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS INDUS TOWER LTD.)

Date of Order/Judgment: 07/11/2022
Court - notification(5.03.2003) applicable only to class of leases specified in Article 33(a) of schedule appended to Rajasthan Stamp Act,1998 Act. Addition/substitution of words/phrases not warranted as it is against strict construction and literal construction principle. Respondent not entitled to benefit of notification, claim of reduced rate of stamp duty of lease deeds executed in its favour not tenable in law. Liable to pay stamp duty. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed.
Judgement Link

9. SAW / 396 / 2020 (DOLI MANDIR SHRI MAHADEV JI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/11/2022
Appeal against order holding statutory remedy of appeal available against order by District Collector, order by DC challenged being without jurisdiction. This Court - notice never issued to temple, proceedings before DC without Jurisdiction, breach of principles of natural justice, violates S.89(3) of Land Revenue Act. Availability of statutory remedy do not hamper right to challenge legality of impugned order u/A.226 of COI. Order by learned Single Judge reversed. Order by DC quashed. Allowed.
Judgement Link

10. SAW / 602 / 2022 (BHEEYA RAM JAJRA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 02/11/2022
This Court- Law laid down that employer to consider Govt. orders/instructions/rules applicable to employee at time of decision. Govt. instructions clearly prohibit entry into Govt. service of an individual involved in an offence of moral turpitude. Petitioner facing trial under NDPS Act for serious offence against society and involves grave moral turpitude. Action of respondents in denying appointment is in accordance with law. No interference warranted. Dismissed.
Judgement Link

11. SAW / 245 / 2019 (DHARAM PAL MORYA SON OF SHRI RAM DHAN MORYA VS REGISTRAR, KOTA OPEN UNIVERSITY)

Date of Order/Judgment: 01/11/2022
Admission cancelled after passing B.Ed course.Petition dismissed stating appellant failed to dislodge contentions of documents being forged.Court-issue of certificate being forged or not could be decided only in fact finding enquiry,no material before Court to convince that case is of forgone conclusion and opportunity of hearing would be useless formality.Cancelling exam without an opportunity of hearing void ab initio.Order set-aside.Liberty to enquire after opportunity to hear.Appeal allowed.
Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of October,2022

1. CMA / 1192 / 1997 (UNION OF INDIA AND ORS VS AGRAWAL AND AGRAWAL)

Date of Order/Judgment: 12/10/2022
Appeal against Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur awarding compensation of Rs.9,45,630.55 along with interest at 12percent/annum to respondent. This Court -Tribunal at Jaipur had jurisdiction, had considered documentary evidence, considered provisions to be followed for protection of consignment from damage, effect of non-following procedure, Section 99 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987.Appellant failed to give notice of arrival of consignment, so defence unjustified. Award not faulted. Disposed.
Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of September,2022

1. SAW / 927 / 2020 (THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS ANIL KUMAR S/O SHRI HARI RAM)

Date of Order/Judgment: 07/09/2022
Appeal against order by learned Single Judge directing regularization of services of part time Safaikarmi. This Court - order set aside as respondent not working against any sanctioned/vacant post of Class IV Employee, no post exist on which he could be regularized. Court directed to ensure payment of minimum wages, liberty to approach Labour Court that he is no longer a part time employee and works as regular Class IV Employees and entitled to minimum pay of class IV. Appeal disposed.
Judgement Link

1. SAW / 800 / 2022 (JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED VS ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 07/09/2022
Order of learned Single Judge dismissing petition as not maintainable u/A 226 COI, upholding award by Electricity Ombudsman Rajasthan in favour of consumer being entitled to adjustment on account of inaccuracy in meter and revision of bills challenged. This Court opined that even in absence of statutory remedy under 2003 Act, jurisdiction of High Court u/A 226,227 can be invoked to challenge awards in writ proceedings. Further denied interference on merits. Appeal partly allowed.
Judgement Link

1. CW / 20055 / 2019 (SIMRAN RAJ @ SALMA NAT W/O YUGAVEL GUNASEKARAN VS UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 06/09/2022
Court on legality of refusal to issue passport to petitioner opined that communication shows pre determination to reject passport application. Contradiction in mail and show cause notice. Case does not fall under any contingencies of s. 5(2)(c) of 1967 Act where passport can be refused. Authority erroneously usurped power, cannot make their own independent enquiry, no power to treat birth certificate as fraudulently obtained. Impugned communication and orders not sustainable, quashed. Disposed.
Judgement Link

1. CW / 9840 / 2009 (KASTUR CHAND VS B O R AJMER AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 01/09/2022
Petition against orders by Additional Collector(Revenue)and Board of Revenue. This Court - petitioner was impleaded as legal representative on death of his father in earlier petition filed by father which was dismissed by this Court, petitioner suppressed this fact in this petition, so indulgence cannot be granted by this Court. Legality of orders already decided, no right to raise same issues before this Court again. Petition for misuse of court of law. Cost Rs.25,00,000/- imposed. Dismissed.
Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of August,2022

1. CW / 6162 / 2022 (IN RE TALCHHAPAR SANCTUARY VS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT. OF RAJ., JAIPUR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 31/08/2022
In suo moto writ petition Court directed to prohibit any act to reduce area of Tal Chappar Wildlife Sanctuary, to forward proposal for declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zone around Tal Chappar. Road passing through Sanctuary denotified. To merge more salt pans into forest area, to initiate legal proceedings converting Government revenue land around Jaswantgarh forest block into forest category, plantation of grass, trees. To form an expert panel of five persons to monitor operations. Disposed.
Judgement Link

2. CFA / 125 / 1989 (SAFDAR ALI KHAN S/O SHRI CHOTE KHAN, VS LALLU BASANT SINGH S/O SHRI LALLU RATAN SINGH)

Date of Order/Judgment: 26/08/2022
Appeal against suit decreed for specific performance of an agreement to sell, execution of sale deed, possession handover. This Court reversed findings, concluded that payment by plaintiff not proved, agreement unregistered, all aspects not dealt with by Trial Court so jurisdictional error, balance of interest, equities, hardship overlooked. In suit for specific performance, cancellation of sale deed in favor of subsequent purchaser not required. Impugned judgment quashed. Appeal allowed.
Judgement Link

3. CMA / 4410 / 2019 (RAMSHARAN GUPTA S/O SHRI SURAJ NARAIN KHANDELWAL (GUPTA) VS KRISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL @ KISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL S/O SHRI GOPAL LAL AGARWAL)

Date of Order/Judgment: 25/08/2022
Appeal against order allowing successive/second temporary injunction application u/O 39R1,2 CPC. This Court opined that earlier application not decided on merits. Status of suit property is being changed through construction, successive application is under changed circumstances, so not barred by principles of 'Res Judicata'. Appellate Court can interfere when court below acts arbitrarily/contrary to law. Trial Court exercised its discretion judiciously. Interference declined. Appeals rejected.
Judgement Link

4. STR / 185 / 2019 (COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER VS M/S SANTOKBA DURLABHJI MEMORIAL CUM MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE)

Date of Order/Judgment: 25/08/2022
Court applied Aspect Doctrine/Predominant Test citing BSNL v. UOI (2006) 145 STC 91 ruled that lenses, stents, implants, sale of medicines to indoor patients, room-rent, food-supply while carrying medical treatment services constitutes medical treatment/health service and not supply of good, it is predominantly service and incidental sales/services are bundled into. Revenue has no competence to levy sale tax, Order deleting tax, interest, penalty by Tax Board upheld. Revision Dismissed.
Judgement Link

5. CW / 14865 / 2016 (NARENDRA SINGH YADAV VS STATE AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 25/08/2022
Petition to direct respondent to permit participation in counselling, promotion as Senior Teacher, quash candidates list. Participation denied stating English studied as compulsory subject and not optional. This Court on facts found English taught to petitioner be treated as optional, law laid down in DBSAW-598/2018, SBCW-13707/2018 that candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in graduation course satisfied object of Rules 1971 relied. Respondent action unsustainable. Allowed.
Judgement Link

6. CSA / 79 / 2022(AMBRESH SHARMA S/O LADDARAM VS SARAD CHAND FADKE S/O LATE SHRI KRISHANRAI FADKE)

Date of Order/Judgment: 23/08/2022
Second Appeal against judgment by first appellate court affirming decree of suit for possession, mesne profits, permanent injunction filed by respondent-plaintiff. This court denied application u/O6R17 as defence never sought earlier, not bonafide . Intention to create license not lease/tenancy in favor of defendant evident, declined interference as no substantial question of law involved, at stage of second appeal no new case can be made out. Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Link

7. CFA / 36 / 1982 (SMT.GULAB DEVI VS SMT. NARANGI DEVI)

Date of Order/Judgment: 23/08/2022
This court appraised facts, reasons and opined that findings by Learned Trial Court on issues are in accordance with law, based on appreciation of evidence. Viewed that a vague, specious, unclear agreement not liable to be specifically enforceable for specific performance. No error committed on fact and law in declaring sale deed 5.4.1980 as null and void in relation to bukhari already purchased and in possession of plaintiff. First appeal and cross-objection devoid of merits. Thus, Dismissed.
Judgement Link

8. SAW / 969/ 2021 (AXIS BANK LTD. VS SMT. HEMLATA GARG W/O SHRI MANGTU RAM GARG)

Date of Order/Judgment: 22/08/2022
Objection regarding maintainability of present special appeal writ. This Court relied on Apex Court's New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Suncity Holding & Trading Ltd. And Anr which held that where an award passed by Lok Adalat is challenged by a petition under Article 227 of COI, remedy of intraCourt appeal not available. Appellant only invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227, petition filed cannot be termed as under Art. 226 and 227, appeal not maintainable, thus dismissed.
Judgement Link

9. CFA / 270 / 2005 (SMT SHARDA DEVI VS BHAGWATI PRASAD)

Date of Order/Judgment: 22/08/2022
Appeal against suit decreed for eviction, recovery of rent on ground of default, bonafide and reasonable necessity. This Court -Trial Court did not err in not according benefit of I default to defendant as rent deposited beyond period given u/s 13(4) of Rent Act, necessity need not be proved as dire necessity, discussed bonafide requirement of plaintiff with comparative hardship between landlord and tenant, upheld comparative hardship in of plaintiff landlord. Impugned order upheld, Dismissed.
Judgement Link

10. CFA / 115 / 1989 (SMT.KAMLA VS MANOHAR LAL)

Date of Order/Judgment: 18/08/2022
First appeal against suit decreed for declaration, possession, permanent injunction. Appellant claimed rights through 'Will', respondent through non-testamentary succession. This court examined facts, evidence on record and observed that court below erred in treating Will as suspicious, findings on Will erroneous, unsustainable. Direct, ocular evidence proved execution of Will, signatures on Will came on record. Will proved, is genuine,lawful, valid document. Decree set aside,appeal allowed.

Judgement Link

11. SAW / 100 / 2022 (RAHUL JAIN VS BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK)

Date of Order/Judgment: 18/08/2022
Special appeal against learned Single Judge dismissing petition filed seeking direction to fill 126 vacancies of Officer Scale-II (GBO) by allotting candidates on merit, preference to Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin. This Court viewed that role of recruiting agency- IBPS is limited to extent of conducting examinations, declining to allot candidates against advertised vacancies of BRKGB on ground of provisional allotment already made cannot be justified. Directed to allot post. Appeal Allowed.

Judgement Link

12. CW / 6233 / 2021 (MADHU SAINI D/O B.S. SAINI VS DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 03/08/2022
This Court denied to regularize illegal admissions granted to petitioners who were ineligible (NEET non- qualified) for MDS Course, did not furnish full correct information to authorities. Court viewed that 3 years in College turned to be wastage of energy, time, money spent on education by parents, so liable to be compensated at Rs.10 lakhs each by College for illegality committed while giving admission and further furnishing incorrect, false information to University , DCI. Writ dismissed.

Judgement Link

13. SAW / 479 / 2022 (SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA SON OF LATE SHRI TULSI RAM SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 03/08/2022
This court viewed that there is inordinate delay of 18 years with no reasonable explanation. Opined that delay and laches disentitle litigant to any relief. Refusal to permit agitation of stale claims is based on principle of acquiescence. Entertainment at belated stage of 18 years would disturb seniority, promotions of others appointed, would unsettle settled position of employees. No interference warranted in order by learned Single Judge. Special Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

14. CFA / 280 / 2022 (SMT. KAMLI DEVI W/O SHRI HANUMAN SHARMA D/O LATE SHRI PURANMAL VS SMT. RAMPYARI W/O LATE SHRI PURANMAL)

Date of Order/Judgment: 03/08/2022
Appeal against rejection of suit filed for declaration, permanent injunction, claim of 1/8 khatedari rights in agricultural lands, challenged sale deeds. Court- without getting declared khatedari rights before revenue court plaintiff cannot challenge execution of sale deeds. To get right declared, jurisdiction vests in revenue court u/s 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955. In plaint, no cause of action disclosed, right to sue barred, Lower Court rightly rejected suit under O 7 R11 CPC. Dismissed.

Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of July,2022

1. SAW / 1063 / 2019 (HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/07/2022
Appeal against order dismissing petition observing that Rajasthan entitled to claim stamp duty in respect of valuation of entire instrument at rate prescribed under Stamp Act of 1998. This Court opined appellant liable for stamp duty only on market value of properties situated in State of Rajasthan assessed in accordance with statutory scheme of Act of 1998. The demand for payment of stamp duty in excess of such liability is in excess of authority under Act. Appeal allowed.

Judgement Link

2. SAW / 1063 / 2019 (HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/07/2022
Appeal against order dismissing petition observing that Rajasthan entitled to claim stamp duty in respect of valuation of entire instrument at rate prescribed under Stamp Act of 1998. This Court opined appellant liable for stamp duty only on market value of properties situated in State of Rajasthan assessed in accordance with statutory scheme of Act of 1998. The demand for payment of stamp duty in excess of such liability is in excess of authority under Act. Appeal allowed.

Judgement Link

3. CSA / 448 / 1996 (SMT.MOHINI AND ORS. VS SMT.GOPALI AND ORS.)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/07/2022
This court examined substantial questions of law, on objection of decree of possession passed in suit for eviction opined that factual matrix not confined within scope of Rajasthan Rent Control Act,1950 only. When defense of acquiring title by way of adverse possession taken then ownership of plaintiff cannot be disputed, title through adverse possession rightly declined by Courts below. Decree of eviction and possession passed by Learned Courts below infallible, second appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

4. CW / 4344 / 2015 (BRIJ MOHAN GUPTA VS CANARA BANK AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/07/2022
Petition against dismissal from service. This court- charge found proved by Disciplinary, Appellate, Reviewing Authorities. In misconduct, nullity in criminal case not bar disciplinary proceedings, when are on different footing. In fiscal transactions/banking, acquittal in criminal case not determinative of commission of misconduct. Conduct intentional mala fide, is misconduct under Regulation 3,24,15,20 of Canara Bank Officer Employees(Conduct) Regulations 1976,so dismissal valid. Dismissed.

Judgement Link

5. CW / 1261 / 2001 (MAABHARATI SHIKSHA SAMITI TALW VS STATE AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 28/07/2022
Challenge to order by UIT, Kota and minutes of meeting alleging decision being arbitrary, violative of right to get allotment of land. Court viewed that merely recommendation of Allotment Sub-Committee, decision of Trust to allot land subject to land use change do not confer any right to allotment. Divisional Commissioner empowered to see correctness/illegality of decisions of Trust for transfer of land. There was no permission to change in land use, so no right to claim allotment. Dismissed.

Judgement Link

6. CFA / 742 / 2017 (MAJID KHAN VS MIJJAJ AND ANR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 22/07/2022
Civil first appeal against order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge which decreed suit. During pendency of appeal, compromise arrived. Application filed u/O 23 Rule 1 to withdraw suit, refund of court fees under s.65B of Act of 1961. This court opined that in spirit of S.65B, even those matters where dispute is settled between parties amicably without intervention of Court, the court fees deserve to be refunded. Appeal disposed.

Judgement Link

7. CW / 2300 / 2020 (TARA CHAND VS UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 21/07/2022
Orders by Central Administrative Tribunal Jodhpur that applicants not holders of 'civil post' so, not amenable to its jurisdiction challenged. Court opined that appointment not on sanctioned posts, so not holders of 'civil posts' within Union of India. Section 14(1)(a) of Administrative Tribunal Act,1985 qua the service disputes of petitioner, not attracted. Learned Tribunal rightly held that it did not have jurisdiction. Petition Dismissed.

Judgement Link

8. CSA / 433 / 2018 (ANIL KUMAR S/O RAJARAM SHARMA VS SHAILENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O RAJENDRA KUMAR @RAJENDRA PRASAD)

Date of Order/Judgment: 15/07/2022
Second appeal preferred against concurrent finding of both courts below which dismissed the appellant-plaintiff's suit for specific performance. This Court opined that plaintiff miserably failed to prove his readiness and willingness, not approached court with clean hands. None of the question of law, falls within purview of substantial question of law. In absence of involvement of any substantial question of law, the second appeal cannot be entertained. Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

9. SAW / 684 / 2022 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS MS. SAJJANA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 12/07/2022
Intra Court Appeal against order of learned Single Judge where in respondents petition admitted and appellant directed to appoint her for the post. This Court viewed the grounds to be frivolous, delay unexplained. FIR lodged against respondent was in relation to inter-family dispute, negative final report submitted before learned JM, FIR did not result in adverse action against respondent. Plea of being unaware of FIR by respondents substantiated. Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

10. WRW / 263 / 2019 (SHRI HANEEF KHAN S/O SH. MODA KHAN VS CHIEF MANAGER OF RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/07/2022
In Writ appeal, order of rejection of application filed under s.33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was uphold and held that workman entitled to half of back wages with continuity of service for intervening period and interest. Review against order of actual benefits limited in terms of wages to extent of 50%. This court opined that review petitioner would be entitled to full wages in respect of the intervening period. Review partly allowed.

Judgement Link

11. CSA / 170 / 1990 (SHANTI LAL AGARWAL VS THE MUNICIPAL BOARD)

Date of Order/Judgment: 08/07/2022
Matter being remanded by Hon'ble Supreme Court for fresh disposal on point whether substantial question of law arised for consideration. This Court answered in negative that it is not the case where on basis of drawing an adverse inference plaintiff is entitled for decree for possession, incumbent for plaintiff to prove his ownership and title, in which he failed. Question of drawing adverse inference against respondent neither arise nor extends any help to plaintiff. Second appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

12. CW / 9086 / 2019 (BHANWARLAL S/O SH. SHRINARAYAN VS M/S LAND MARK EXECUTIVE PVT. LTD.)

Date of Order/Judgment: 06/07/2022
Petition challenging orders urging that Revenue Lok Adalat passed order in absence of parties, Tehsildar prepared report without issuing notice. This court on maintainability opined that there exist right to raise all grievances challenging order of Lok Adalat through writ, requirement of law not complied, no opportunity to raise objections about partition. Revenue Appellant Authority and Board of Revenue erred in upholding decree of Lower Court. Preliminary decree upheld. Petition allowed.

Judgement Link

13. CW / 3563 / 2019 (MUNICIPAL BOARD, KARAULI (PRESENTLY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KARAULI) VS KAMLA DEVI WIFE OF LATE SHRI RAM SINGH)

Date of Order/Judgment: 06/07/2022
Petition challenging order passed u/O 21 R 32 CPC allowed in favor of respondents decree holders. Suit decreed, perpetual injunction granted in 1970. This Court observed that Executing Court passed order after considering decree, judgment, demolition, decree holder been unauthorizedly removed. Court has ample power to see subsequent developments taking place which are not contrary to decree passed in nature of perpetual injunction. Petitioner failed to comply with decree. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of May,2022

1. CW / 9393 / 2019 (SANDEEP PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI KASHINATH PANDEY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 26/05/2022
Petition against attachment order 28.12.2015 for recovery, sought direction against hindrance in running stone crusher, issue transit pass. This court opined that order deciding claim not challenged nor rejoinder filed, so recovery cannot be termed illegal. Writ jurisdiction can be invoked immediately when any violation of FR takes place, imminent direction is sought against State Authorities. Delay, laches in approaching Court is important factor for not entertaining writ petition. Dismissed.

Judgement Link

2. CW / 11980 / 2021 (RAJENDRA KUMAR S/O LT. SHRI MANAK CHAND VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX)

Date of Order/Judgment: 25/05/2022
Court opined that recovery by respondent de-hors provisions of S.245 of IT Act, if appeal filed then no requirement of predeposit, will not be assessee in default as u/s 220(6). Adjustment from due refund can be done after serving intimation and hearing as u/s 245 of IT Act. Action of recovery by respondents de-hors statutory provisions u/s 220(6), 245 of IT Act and lacked jurisdiction as u/s 222, 223 of IT Act. Court directed to refund in excess of 20% with interest. Appeal allowed.

Judgement Link

3. CW / 13488 / 2019 (EPTISA SERVICIOS DE INGENIERIA SL VS AJMER SMART CITY LIMITED)

Date of Order/Judgment: 23/05/2022
Petition filed against order dismissing application filed u/s 34(4) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 by Commercial Court. This Court finds that award cannot be remitted to Arbitrator in guise of additional reasons and fill up gaps in reasoning, if there are no findings in contentious issues in award or if any findings are recorded ignoring material evidence on record, the same are acceptable grounds for setting aside award itself. Dismissed.

Judgement Link

4.SAW / 41 / 2021 (JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS GHASIRAM S/O CHUNA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2022
Court declining interference in Single Judges order stating that when a particular set of persons are given a benefit, all other similarly situated persons are to be treated alike. Respondents, like Chhotu Ram opted for 15% developed land within stipulated time, so, JDA cannot differentiate in allotment of similar set of land to respondents, Chhotu Ram litigated on behalf of everyone and the order attained finality, so like Chhotu Ram, respondents entitled too. Special Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

5.CW / 3649 / 2021 (PRAVEEN KUMAR PARMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2022
PIL against transfer of members of Mewar Bhil Corps to other districts as violating Rajasthan Scheduled Area Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service Rules, 2014.This court opined that S.34 of Rajasthan Police Act,2007 empowers state to deploy a police officer in any part of State. Members of MBC too form part of police force of State. Act stand on higher pedestal than Rules. In conflict rules will have to yield to provisions of Act. Deployment is different from transfer, deputation. Dismissed.

Judgement Link

6. CMA / 192 / 2006 (GEEGRAJ VS NAGARMAL AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2022
Misc. appeal filed u/O41 R23A of CPC against judgement passed by ADJ, Kehtri, Jhunjhunu in civil appeal condoning delay of 10years and 8months quashing decree passed by Civil Judge, Khetri, directing defendants not to dispossess plaintiffs from land in question without following due process of law, alternatively to regularize the possession of plaintiffs. This court opined it was erroneous to condone delay without giving notice to plaintiff, so remanded matter back to decide afresh. Appeal disposed.

Judgement Link

7. EXCIA / 12 / 2019 (M/S MANU YANTRALAYA (P) LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE)

Date of Order/Judgment: 17/05/2022
This court opined that no exparte order of dismissal for non-prosecution can be passed, CESTAT is bound to decide appeal on merits as S.35C of Central Excise Act,1944 enables it to pass order on appeal either confirming, modifying or annulling decision or it may remand matter. Rule 20 of CESTAT Rules gives power to Tribunal to set aside dismissal and restore appeal, if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown, word 'shall' cast an obligation on Tribunal to restore appeal. Appeal allowed.

Judgement Link

8. EXCIA / 60 / 2019 (COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX VS M/S TATA BLUESCOPE STEEL LIMITED)

Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2022
This court rejecting appeal opined that once department has accepted charging of excess duty at the end Jamshedpur unit, they cannot open assessment at the end of recipient. Respondent paid duty and supplier has deposited same with revenue/department. There is no loss to revenue and therefore, dis-entitling respondent to claim it as credit is de-hors Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules. No substantial question of law arises. Learned CESTAT order well-reasoned. Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

9. COAP / 6 / 2020 (ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER VS M/S VANASTHALI TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LIMITED)

Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2022
Issue before this Court is preferential treatment, priority to State claim. This Court finds that S. 529A of Act of 1956 provides priority to debts due to the secured creditors and workers and S.530 of Act of 1956 makes payment of taxes subject to the priority embodied in S.529A.Priority is given to dues of workmen, secured creditor and later on preferential payments in favour of Central/State Government/local authority in their dues, taxes, etc. Applications Dismissed.

Judgement Link

10. COAP / 24 / 2018 (ASSTT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER VS M/S PUNUSUMI INDIA LIMITED)

Date of Order/Judgment: 12/05/2022
Issue before this Court is preferential treatment, priority to State claim. This Court finds that S. 529A of Act of 1956 provides priority to debts due to the secured creditors and workers and S.530 of Act of 1956 makes payment of taxes subject to the priority embodied in S.529A.Priority is given to dues of workmen, secured creditor and later on preferential payments in favour of Central/State government/local authority in their dues, taxes, etc. Applications Dismissed.

Judgement Link

11. SAW / 548 / 2022 (SURESH SHARMA, S/O LATE LAXMI NARAYAN SHARMA VS DHANWANTI SHARMA W/O LATE LAXMI NARAYAN SHARMA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 07/05/2022
Appeal against order passed by learned Single Judge dismissing writ against order by SDO, Jaipur. SDO directed to vacate property within one month. This court hold that final relief granted by way of an interim order cannot be granted, as same would amount to grant of final relief in form of an interim relief, which cannot be granted as settled by Supreme Court. Learned Single Judge did not consider ratio decided by the Supreme Court. Both orders quashed. Appeal Writ Allowed.

Judgement Link

12. CW / 16922 / 2019 (MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI OM PRAKASH SHARMA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 06/05/2022
Petitioners appointed in compliance of this court's DB judgment. Under R.37 of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Service Rules,1999 interse seniority shall follow order in list prepared u/r 28,29.DB judgment never challenged, so finality. Respondents bound to comply judgment. Appointment delayed due to respondents' negligence, so benefits of notional fixation - seniority, promotion, pay scale etc. from date when persons appointed in same selection process entitled. Petition allowed.

Judgement Link

13.SAW / 1077 / 2005 (ADARSH SHIKSHA PARISHAD SAMITI VS GAJANAND SHARMA AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 06/05/2022
This Court cited Apex Court's T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Central Academy Society which ruled that first proviso to S.18 of 1989 Act would not apply in disciplinary action taken by Unaided Private Educational Institutions, prior approval of Director not necessary before taking disciplinary action against employee of Unaided Recognized Educational Institution. Single Judge and Tribunal's order set aside; termination order upheld. Appeal Allowed.

Judgement Link

14. CMA / 511 / 2009 (STATE OF RAJ AND ORS VS M/S GODHARA CONSTRUCTION COMP)

Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2022
Appeal filed against order rejecting objections as time barred filed u/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against award. This court answered that statutory provisions clears that S. 5 of limitation Act does not apply to proceedings u/s 34 of Act of 1996. Application u/s 34(3) of Act for setting aside arbitral award was beyond mandatory period of limitation permitted under Act. So, same could not be entertained by taking recourse of provisions of Limitation Act. Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

15. SAC/22/2018 (SH. SHANKAR JHA (MANAGER) VS NAND KISHOR GUPTA S/O SH. NATHU LAL GUPTA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2022
Special Appeal against order of Learned Single Judge holding contemnors guilty, confirmation of sale and issuance of certificate as void ab initio, directed to take back possession of property. This court denied upholding transaction of sale as void relying on Apex Court's judgment, denied taking back of possession, denied guilt of impleaded contemnors as no specific role played by them. Authority violating order not impleaded. Liberty to petitioner initiate separate proceedings. Appeal allowed.

Judgement Link

16. CFA/680/2004 (MAHENDRA YADAV S/O LATE SHRI GHASIRAM YADAV VS BHAGWAN DEVI W/O LATE SHRI KRISHAN SHARAN SHARMA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 05/05/2022
Appeal against decree of eviction, recovery of rent. This court opined first appeal unwarranted, for ulterior motive, malafide, superfluous, unscrupulous litigation. Trial Courts finding on default affirmed, benefit of first default already extended, no jurisdictional error in appreciation of evidence on bonafide and reasonable necessity. Decree for eviction is just and proper, requires no interference, same affirmed. Issue of partial eviction also decided in favour of plaintiff. Dismissed.

Judgement Link

17. CMA / 2713 / 2012 (RANJEET SINGH THROUGH LRS VS UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2022
Appeal against Railway Claims Tribunal rejecting claim that original applicant died, so petition by legal representatives not maintainable. This Court perused R.26 of Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,1989 opined that right to sue survive as it crystalised when claim was filed because entitlement of injured was for compensation and an entitlement to compensation being an entitlement of money, cannot abate on account of death of injured-claimant in claim petition, Tribunal erred. Allowed.

Judgement Link

18. SAC/13/2019 (RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA S/O DEVI SHARAN SHARMA VS NAND KISHOR GUPTA S/O SH. NATHU LAL GUPTA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/05/2022
Special Appeal against order of Learned Single Judge holding contemnors guilty, confirmation of sale and issuance of certificate as void ab initio, directed to take back possession of property. This court denied upholding transaction of sale as void relying on Apex Court's judgment, denied taking back of possession, denied guilt of impleaded contemnors as no specific role played by them. Authority violating order not impleaded. Liberty to petitioner initiate separate proceedings. Appeal allowed.

Judgement Link

19. CW/14442/2019 (MAHANT RAMPRAKASH DAS SWAMI VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (I))

Date of Order/Judgment: 02/05/2022
Petitioner applied for name in Trust Register after late Mahant. Respondent urged his name in amended Constitution. Courts below found no declaration in petitioner favour, failed being declared as working trustee, amended constitution provides next to be from Khalsa family. This court opined that Courts below recorded facts correctly. Power under A. 227 is to see if jurisdiction exercised in proper manner or not. Appreciation of evidence or facts under A.227 is not proper exercise. Dismissed.

Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of April,2022

1. CW/4206/2022 (ASHWANI CHAUHAN DAUGHTER OF SHRI BHOOPENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 27/04/2022
Petition to consider her in Priority-IV for 1% reservation, Priority-VI allotted be declared illegal, non-eligibility in Priority-IV hit by Article14. Court denied same benefit to Armed Personnel invalidated out earlier and those who continue in service, there is reason to provide separate categories, so separate Priority not arbitrary. Art.14 gives right to equal treatment in similar circumstances, classification on intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus is permitted. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

2. CW / 14949 / 2020 (KUMAR INDU BHUSHAN, S/O LATE GURUDAYAL SAHU VS UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 27/04/2022
Petition against order of compulsory retirement (CR), seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. Court opined that respondents not driven by extraneous, malicious, perverse, unreasonable or arbitrary considerations, decision considered entire facts, material available, service record, performance, usefulness, acted in public interest, no procedural error, principles of natural justice not required as CR is not a punishment, only to improve administration. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

3. CW / 351 / 2021 (ANKIT KHANDELWAL S/O SHRI GHANSHYAM PRASAD GUPTA VS THE UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 25/04/2022
CAT Jaipur set aside draft seniority, directed officials to revisit draft seniority list in the light of Caselaw K. Meghachandra Singh and publish a final list. Question before this Court- "Whether the draft seniority list dated 26.6.2019 can be treated as final seniority list?" Court opined that since both the list were draft/tentative/provisional seniority list, no final list was issued post objections, therefore not final seniority list. Tribunal's order upheld. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

4. CW / 14042 / 2021 (VINOD KUMAR KASHYAP S/O SH KARAN SINGH KAHYAP VS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 25/04/2022
Petition against order of compulsory retirement, seeking reinstate with consequential benefits. Court opined that respondents not driven by extraneous, malicious, perverse, unreasonable or arbitrary considerations, decision considered entire facts, material available, service record, performance, usefulness, acted in public interest, no procedural error, principles of natural justice not required as compulsory retirement is not a punishment. Done to improve administration. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

5. CW / 1244 / 2022 (SUNITA MEENA D/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 20/04/2022
Petition challenged legality of categorywise merit list of preliminary examinations, non-inclusion by giving benefit of horizontal reservation as widow in ST category and entitlement in general merit list(widow) through rule of migration. Court opined rule of migration of reserved category candidate from his/her own category to general category to be placed in merit list would be applicable while preparing final merit list and not while shortlisting categorywise at screening. Petition dismissed

Judgement Link

6. CW / 8082 / 2018 (MS MANGALAM ARTS VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 20/04/2022
This Court expressed that the opinion by an officer/ individual is a noting simplicitor and not decision of authority, notesheets/internal departmental communications cannot be treated as decision of the State/RIICO. Discontinuing "first come first serve" method and regarding public auction as better is not arbitrary as is in interest of Corporation. Depositing amount unilaterally in absence of any allotment letter would not create any right to claim allotment. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

7. CW / 3472 / 2022 (HAIDER KHAN VS UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 19/04/2022
Petition branded as PIL to direct Central Government to conduct census activities in specified time and declare Section 3 of Census Act, 1948 as ultra vires. Court opined petition as malafide, fanciful and unrealistic, prejudice to the public at large by noncompletion of the census operations not established, census activities are to be undertaken in accordance of Act, is a sovereign function of the CG, questioning bonafides of the executing authorities unreasonable. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

8. STR / 9 / 2021 (M/S ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LIMITED VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, PALI)

Date of Order/Judgment: 18/04/2022
Petition against Rajasthan Tax Board rejecting refund of mandatory statutory obligation pre-deposit with appeals. This Court disregarded finding recorded by Board that amount of pre-deposits were distinct, were not covered under claim filed by Department before NCLAT. Consequential relief pursuant to extinguishment of demand require a direction for refund. Boards order set aside. Amounts as mandatory statutory obligation while filing appeals before Tax Board shall be reimbursed. Revisions allowed

Judgement Link

9. CW / 9521 / 2013 (SMT ASHA DEVI AGARWAL VS B O R AJMER AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/04/2022
Maintainability u/A.226,227 of COI allowed by this Court, usurpation of power by Revenue Board as revision treated as original, beyond power u/s.84 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956, notification regarding Meena Community misread. Right to recover possession of respondent barred by limitation, never challenged sale deed nor sought declaration. ADC wrong in remanding matter and treating mutation void-ab-initio, District Collector rightly rejected appeal against mutation. Petition allowed.

Judgement Link

10. CW / 4741 / 2022 (SURESH BALKRISHNA JAJRA SON OF LATE SHRI BAL KRISHAN JAJRA VS UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2022
Petition for exempting personal appearance in summons issued u/s 70 of CGST Act, 2017 and representation through authorized representative u/s 116 of Act. This Court opined that provision require personal appearance for examination on oath or affirmation, no right to be represented, so no relief. On application by petitioner, authority may consider changing dates of appearance. The authority directed to follow procedure as laid down for summons u/s 70 of Act. Petition disposed.

Judgement Link

11. CW / 18382 / 2011 (NISHA SAXENA VS STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENTANR)

Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2022
Petition to direct respondent to consider candidature for appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer (Psychology) under Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules,2010.This court opined that appointment of petitioner was not as per Rules 26, 27 and 28 of RNGEI Rules 1993,was not working on sanctioned, approved and aided post, college not getting aid against petitioner's post, so not entitled to get appointment in government service under Rule 4 of the Rules of 2010.. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

12. CW / 7858 / 2004 (STATE OF RAJ VS RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES APPEAL)

Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2022
Court -Tribunal erred,exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside compulsory retirement order of District Collector u/R 53(i) of the Pension Rules,1996 .Respondent's conduct was not good, work performance unsatisfactory in tenure, doubtful integrity, incompetence to discharge official duties, has lost his utility, may require the concerned Government Servant to retire in public interest, retention not in public interest as said by Screening Committee. Tribunal's order quashed. Petition allowed.

Judgement Link

13. CW / 6089 / 2019 (SURESH SHARMA S/O LATE LAXMI NARAYAN SHARMA VS DHANWANTI SHARMA W/O LATE LAXMI NARAYN SHARMA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 07/04/2022
Petition against order of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Tribunal (S.D.O.) Jaipur to vacate premises owned by respondent mother. Prayed to set aside eviction and maintain status quo. Denied on facts that mother ill-treated, expelled, abused, dwelling together poses threat to her life. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

14. CW / 20168 / 2019 (NISHA BATRA W/O SHRI SUSHIL BATRA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 06/04/2022
Petitioners claiming as employees of State Government, regular pay-scale, salary directly from SG and regularization.Petitioner appointed by placement agency. Agency was successful bidder to provide manpower under DAY-NULM scheme of GOI engaged by SG. This court ruled that no employee-employer relation between petitioner and SG, not appointed by State Government against sanctioned post on regular basis, agency not impleaded, remuneration by agency not by SG. No case made out, petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

15. CW / 6232 / 2019 (DEEPAK KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI CHOUTHMAL GUPTA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 06/04/2022
Petitioners claiming as employees of State Government, regular pay-scale, salary directly from SG and regularization.Petitioner appointed by placement agency. Agency was successful bidder to provide manpower under DAY-NULM scheme of GOI engaged by SG. This court ruled that no employee-employer relation between petitioner and SG, not appointed by State Government against sanctioned post on regular basis, agency not impleaded, remuneration by agency not by SG. No case made out, petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

16. CW / 1676 / 2009 (BINOD KUMAR SINGH VS RAJ RAJ VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM)

Date of Order/Judgment: 01/04/2022
Petition against rejection of VRS and terminating services. This Court opined- no detailed enquiry carried, no officer appointed, proceedings vitiated, termination beyond charges in show cause notice, rejecting appeal for slight delay violates Principles of Natural Justice. Denying VRS is illegal, unconstitutional. Charge of absconding faulty. Not carried the provisions of Regulation 7 of the CC&A Regulations, 1962. Declared voluntary retired with consequential benefits. Petition disposed.

Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of March,2022

1. CW / 8472 / 2021 (JAL GRAHAN VIKAS SANSTHA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 31/03/2022
Petitions against land alloted to company by State Government for solar project. This Court opined that allotment is on Banjar land not on restricted land, does not-affect flora-fauna, natural flow of water, area beyond 50 acres could be allotted under amended Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Setting Up of Power Plant based on Renewable Energy Sources) Rules, 2007. Injunction against infrastructural project is against statutory provisions. Petitions devoid of merit, dismissed.

Judgement Link

2. CSA / 669 / 2009 (RAM SWAROOP AND ORS VS MOHAMMAD ISLAM)

Date of Order/Judgment: 30/03/2022
Substantial Question framed whether Civil Courts barred from trying matter as rented shop is waqf property. Courts below after appreciation of evidence decreed eviction petition for bona fide and reasonable necessity. Civil Courts has jurisdiction as Muslim Board of waqf and tenant never objected civil courts jurisdiction, disputed property neither registered in register of waqf nor a public waqf. Hence, no interference u/s 100 CPC. Question of law without ambit and scope. Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

3. CW / 4541 / 2022 (ANSHUL SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 30/03/2022
Petition filed seeking direction to issue permanent disability certificate for admission in MBBS UG Course. Certificate issued considered him ineligible. Court opined that Authorities were negligent in issuing certificate, failed to apply their mind even second time also while dealing in granting disability certificate, norms not adhered, guidelines not followed, acted not properly. Should adhere to parameters laid down, Gazette Notification guidelines issued from time to time. Petition allowed.

Judgement Link

4. CW / 3585 / 2019 (SATYANARAYAN CHOUDHARY S/O TEJMAL CHOUDHARY VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 29/03/2022
Petition seeking direction for appointment on post of Constable. Selection denied as criminal case registered at the time of selection process. This Court opined that no clean acquittal as was from compromise, witness turning hostile, no illegality by Selection Committee as post being in Disciplined Security Forces. Apex Court's Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar and State of Rajasthan Vs. Love Kush Meena relied on points of honorable acquittal and moral turpitude. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

5. SAW / 469 / 2020 (THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS RAJENDRA SINGH S/O BAJRANG SINGH)

Date of Order/Judgment: 22/03/2022
Appeal against dismissal of State's petition against award of labour court directing reinstatement with back wages. This court opined that termination took place 25 years ago, approached court after 3 years delay, non diligent with case, period of service less then 5 years, it was daily wager agreement, so no reinstatement. Lump sum compensation of 3 lakhs awarded as violation of section 25F I.D Act and last come first go found. Order by learned Single Judge set aside. Partly allowed.

Judgement Link

6. CW / 8189 / 2021 (GYAN KUNJ COLLEGE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
This court in these set of writ petitions directed that penalty clause in policy / imposition of penalty for regularizing deficiencies in temporary recognition by Commissioner, College Education, withholding NOC is beyond his power and illegal as per Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules 1993. This court directed to refund already deposited penalty, colleges should use this penalty for students' welfare, no prejudice be caused to students. Petitions disposed.

Judgement Link

7. CW / 1057 / 2021 (RAHUL CHANDIJA MEMORIAL COLLEGE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
This court in these set of writ petitions directed that penalty clause in policy / imposition of penalty for regularizing deficiencies in temporary recognition by Commissioner, College Education, withholding NOC is beyond his power and illegal as per Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules 1993. This court directed to refund already deposited penalty, colleges should use this penalty for students' welfare, no prejudice be caused to students. Petitions disposed.

Judgement Link

8. CW / 291 / 2021 (SIDDHI VINAYAK MAHAVIDHAYALYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
This court in these set of writ petitions directed that penalty clause in policy / imposition of penalty for regularizing deficiencies in temporary recognition by Commissioner, College Education, withholding NOC is beyond his power and illegal as per Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules 1993. This court directed to refund already deposited penalty, colleges should use this penalty for students' welfare, no prejudice be caused to students. Petitions disposed.

Judgement Link

9. CW / 1757 / 2020 (VIVEKANAND KANYA MAHAVIDHYALAYA DHOLPUR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
This court in these set of writ petitions directed that penalty clause in policy / imposition of penalty for regularizing deficiencies in temporary recognition by Commissioner, College Education, withholding NOC is beyond his power and illegal as per Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules 1993. This court directed to refund already deposited penalty, colleges should use this penalty for students' welfare, no prejudice be caused to students. Petitions disposed.

Judgement Link

10. CW / 3450 / 2020 (PANDIT UMA DUTT GIRLS P.G. COLLEGE VS MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRAJ UNIVERSITY)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
This court in these set of writ petitions directed that penalty clause in policy / imposition of penalty for regularizing deficiencies in temporary recognition by Commissioner, College Education, withholding NOC is beyond his power and illegal as per Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules 1993. This court directed to refund already deposited penalty, colleges should use this penalty for students' welfare, no prejudice be caused to students. Petitions disposed.

Judgement Link

11. CW / 3439 / 2020 (VIVEKANAND KANYA MAHAVIDHYALAYA VS MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRAJ UNIVERSITY)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
This court in these set of writ petitions directed that penalty clause in policy / imposition of penalty for regularizing deficiencies in temporary recognition by Commissioner, College Education, withholding NOC is beyond his power and illegal as per Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules 1993. This court directed to refund already deposited penalty, colleges should use this penalty for students' welfare, no prejudice be caused to students. Petitions disposed.

Judgement Link

12. CW / 8407 / 2017 (KOSHYALA DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDHYALAYA VS STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
This court in these set of writ petitions directed that penalty clause in policy / imposition of penalty for regularizing deficiencies in temporary recognition by Commissioner, College Education, withholding NOC is beyond his power and illegal as per Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules 1993. This court directed to refund already deposited penalty, colleges should use this penalty for students' welfare, no prejudice be caused to students. Petitions disposed.

Judgement Link

13. CW / 8409 / 2017 (SHRI PRAGYA MAHAVIDHYALAYA VS STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
This court in these set of writ petitions directed that penalty clause in policy / imposition of penalty for regularizing deficiencies in temporary recognition by Commissioner, College Education, withholding NOC is beyond his power and illegal as per Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules 1993. This court directed to refund already deposited penalty, colleges should use this penalty for students' welfare, no prejudice be caused to students. Petitions disposed.

Judgement Link

14. CW / 8406 / 2017 (SRHI PRAGYA MAHILA MAHAVIDHYALAYA VS STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
This court in these set of writ petitions directed that penalty clause in policy / imposition of penalty for regularizing deficiencies in temporary recognition by Commissioner, College Education, withholding NOC is beyond his power and illegal as per Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules 1993. This court directed to refund already deposited penalty, colleges should use this penalty for students' welfare, no prejudice be caused to students. Petitions disposed.

Judgement Link

15. CW / 4033 / 2019 (SAKEER KHAN S/O SHRI AAMIN KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
This court in these set of writ petitions directed that penalty clause in policy / imposition of penalty for regularizing deficiencies in temporary recognition by Commissioner, College Education, withholding NOC is beyond his power and illegal as per Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules 1993. This court directed to refund already deposited penalty, colleges should use this penalty for students' welfare, no prejudice be caused to students. Petitions disposed.

Judgement Link

16. CW / 8648 / 2021 (MAA BHAGWATI DEGREE COLLEGE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
This court in these set of writ petitions directed that penalty clause in policy / imposition of penalty for regularizing deficiencies in temporary recognition by Commissioner, College Education, withholding NOC is beyond his power and illegal as per Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules 1993. This court directed to refund already deposited penalty, colleges should use this penalty for students' welfare, no prejudice be caused to students. Petitions disposed.

Judgement Link

17. CMA / 1799 / 2011 (PREM AND ORS VS AMARJEET SINGH AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/03/2022
Appeal was directed against order of MAC tribunal rejecting compensation claim petition U/S 166 of MV Act,1988, as claimant had already got compensation U/S 22 of WC Act, 1923. Question to decide was Whether the claimants-appellants can file two parallel claim petitions for getting compensation under two enactments. Court held that claimant can choose one forum only by free-will, after choosing a forum, cannot choose another forum to get more benefits. Tribunal's order affirmed; appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

18. CW / 12090 / 2018 (JAIPUR TEXWEAVING PARK LTD VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 09/03/2022
This Court considered the issue of maintainability of petition filed against notice u/s 13(2) & 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act that writ is not maintainable as extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 is not a rule of compulsion, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, not impleaded consortium banks as a necessary party, misrepresented the Court and by-passed the statutory remedy. Cost of Rs. 2Lac imposed. Petition disposed.

Judgement Link

19. SAW / 182 / 2019 (SHRI RAJESH KOOLWAL VS SHANKAR LAL SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI JWALARAM JI SHARMA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 05/03/2022
Special appeal(writ) is preferred against order of court reversing subsequent dismissal order approved by Industrial Tribunal against respondent U/S 33(2)(b) of ID Act, 1947. This court examining the legality of approval of subsequent dismissal, held that there was no impropriety in inquiry proceedings of Tribunal, whereas impugned order of court below was set aside on impression of bias and malice. Writ dismissed; Appeal allowed.

Judgement Link

20. CW / 2795 / 2020 (UNION OF INDIA VS ANIL SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI JAI PRAKASH SHARMA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 05/03/2022
Petition against CAT Jaipur quashing committee's order which reframed, re-evaluated answers to the Departmental Competitive Examination selecting Junior Engineer. Railway Department ousted Anil Sharma who was previously selected. This court ruled that expert committee's major part of reframing question and then changing answer is unfair and not course correction, is highly unfair, unjust to disturb the selection list after long lapse. Tribunal order not interfered with. Petition failed

Judgement Link

21. CW / 18078 / 2018 (SANJAY GHIYA S/O LATE SHRI RAM NARAIN GHIYA VS UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/03/2022
Petition challenges s-56 of RERA Act 2016 that it gives right of legal representation only to applicant/appellant, non-inclusion of word 'respondent' is discriminatory. Court held non providing opportunity is denial of fair opportunity, violation of Natural Justice, no rationale for differential treatment. Distinction for Non-inclusion of word "Respondent" in s 56 is declared illegal. Section to be read down including word "Respondent". Respondent given right of representation. Petition allowed.

Judgement Link

22. SAW / 436 / 2022 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS MANOJ KUMAR TUNGARIYA S/O SH. RAMPAL TUNGARIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 03/03/2022
Appeal directed against order passed in Contempt Petition, directing contemnors to remain present in Court to explain as to why they should not be punished towards alleged wilful-disobedience of order. Court opined; there should be an independent adjudication on the merits of dispute between the parties; this order fails to do so nor deciding any issue based on fresh cause of action. Appeal not maintainable as contempt proceedings are still pending; no punishment order has been passed. Appeal dismissed

Judgement Link

23. CW / 1436 / 2022 (RATANLAL S/O SHRI KASHI RAM PRAJAPAT VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT)

Date of Order/Judgment: 02/03/2022
Appeal directed against order passed in Contempt Petition, directing contemnors to remain present in Court to explain as to why they should not be punished towards alleged wilful-disobedience of order. Court opined; there should be an independent adjudication on the merits of dispute between the parties; this order fails to do so nor deciding any issue based on fresh cause of action. Appeal not maintainable as contempt proceedings are still pending; no punishment order has been passed. Appeal dismissed

Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of February,2022

1. CMA / 1980 / 2012 (HARI SINGH AND OTHERS VS LALIT KUMAR AND OTHERS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 24/02/2022
Appeal against the award by MACT, Jaipur of Rs. 3,72,700/- in death of 22-year-old. This court denied treating engineering bachelor as skilled labour/daily wager, modified the multiplier as 18, and awarded 40 percent future prospects in light of Apex Court rulings. Award enhanced to Rs. 9, 06,900/-. Appeal disposed.

Judgement Link

2. CMA / 2648 / 2015 (SMT MAMTA AND ANOTHER VS MAHENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2022
Dissatisfied with the award of tribunal appeal is filed .This court modified the tribunals order by taking notional income as proper multiplicand of Rs 45,000/-P.A in case of death of child having no income, took proper multiplier of 15 and Rs 40,000/- for loss of love, affection future prospect, funeral expenses to be Rs.15,000. Thus, the total payable compensation to be Rs.7, 85,000. The appeal stands allowed to the extent.

Judgement Link

3. CW / 19964 / 2019 (CHITRANSHI GOYAL DAUGHTER OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL VS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH HEAD OF DIVISIONAL OFFICE)

Date of Order/Judgment: 22/02/2022
Petition to quash the respondent's letter declining the petitioner's candidature as dealers qua IOCL retail outlet under Group-1 that while depositing application form, the land document was not registered. This Court directed to consider petitioner's claim relying on Hamda Ammal Vs. Avadiappa Pathar (1991) 1 SCC 715, considered section 23, 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, Sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act. Petition allowed.

Judgement Link

4. CW / 1936 / 2022 (VINOD SHARMA VS SMT. SHANTI DEVI)

Date of Order/Judgment: 21/02/2022
Present petition challenges the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Jodhpur, ordering to pay maintenance and eviction of petitioner from the house by respondent's U/S 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 R/W Rajasthan Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2010. Court held that Act of 2007 does not envisage an order of eviction even by Tribunal and order oppugned in petition dehors the provisions of the Act. order quashed; petition allowed.

Judgement Link

5. CMA / 1496 / 2012 (HARI SHANKAR BANSAL VS NARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 18/02/2022
Present appeal challenges judgment & award of sum of Rs. 5,22,950/- to the claimant-appellant U/S 157 of MV Act, 1988 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur, which purported to be less against the losses caused to appellant. The court opined; tribunal erred in calculating permanent disability and hospital charges. The court ordered a further sum of Rs. 5,94,585/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim. Petition disposed.

Judgement Link

6. STR / 315 / 2017 (ASSIST COMMISIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES VS M/S C P AGRO INDUSTRIES)

Date of Order/Judgment: 14/02/2022
Petitioner challenged Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer's order which set aside penalty imposed u/s 61 RVAT Act, 2003. This Court opined that section 61 of Act - levies penalty in cases of active concealment and deliberate fraud or misinformation by the Assessee, respondent assessee forged form, faked, avoided payment of Tax, thus penalty was rightly imposed. Tax board failed in recording cogent findings for setting aside penalty and considering section 61 of the Act, order set aside. Petition allowed.

Judgement Link

7. CW / 1685 / 2022 (GANESH RAM CHOUDHARY VS UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 10/02/2022
Petition filed against notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment and order dismissing the objections. This court finds the dismissal order well-reasoned, income escaped assessment, unexplained amounts deposited in bank accounts, assessee did not give explanation even after several demands, tangible material available 'as reason to belief' invoking Section 147 of the Act by IT Commissioner to issue notice. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

8. CW / 15150 / 2021 (BHANWAR SINGH VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 09/02/2022
Petition challenged the government circulars to regularize unauthorized occupations, possessions of land and construction as they are opposed to the various directions issued in case of Gulab Kothari, also to several statutory provisions. Court held Government circulars are not opposed to the Gulab Kothari judgments and permissible. Court finds no illegality in the approach of the Government and till Government brings a valid legislation, directions of Gulab Kothari must apply. Petition disposed

Judgement Link

9. CW / 5928 / 2021 (M/S FAIRDEAL SHIPPING AGENCY PVT LTD. VS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE))

Date of Order/Judgment: 09/02/2022
In present petition the show cause notice issued by officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under the Customs Act, 1962 are challenged. Question to analyse was whether DRI Officers are proper officers under the Act and have power to issue a show cause notice. Court held that DRI officers are not custom officers and hence doesn't come under the definition of proper officer and has not been assigned specific power U/S 6 to issue show cause notice U/S 28 of the Act. Petitions allowed.

Judgement Link

10. CW / 12808 / 2021 (SMT. PARWATI DEVI W/O LATE SHRI MOOL SINGH VS DIRECTOR (G) AND NODAL OFFICER (PG))

Date of Order/Judgment: 08/02/2022
In Present petition challenged the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur dismissing the original application filed by them. Petitioners approached the Tribunal after a lapse of almost 13 years, as the claim for compassionate appointment was rejected twice. This Court is not able to accept the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years. Court opined; tribunal order doesn't warrant interference. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

11. CW / 5916 / 2021 (SUSILA KANKARIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 05/02/2022
Present petition challenges the manner of choosing the multiplying factor at the time of determination and quantum of compensation awarded under the Right to Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition Act,2013. Court held that such multiplying factor was chosen after due deliberations and mature considerations. Meetings of high-level cabinet committees were held. Court doesn't interfere unless the exercise of powers suffers from irrationality, which is missing in present petition. Petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

12. CMA / 2423 / 2012 (NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS SMT KANCHAN DEVI AND OTHERS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 05/02/2022
Appellant company being insurer of a truck fixed with fifty percent liability by tribunal in a claim case where a car driver dashed with stationed truck. Evidence that truck which met accident two days prior was seized by police and dragged to soiled portion. Car driver was negligent and dashed to truck in soiled portion. Police not impleaded. Car Insurer Company liable. Fixing liability to truck owner and truck insurer cannot sustain. Appeal allowed.

Judgement Link

13. CW / 14306 / 2015 (RAM GOPAL YADAV S/O SHRI GANGA RAM YADAV VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2022
Writ petitions invoked against land acquisition proceedings carried by respondents under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stating LAO failed to consider objections raised, alternative land, source of living, notice giving and newspaper publishing under the act, award passed without mind, compensation wrongly calculated. This Court disregarded contentions opining proceedings have not lapsed, acquisition done for public interest, most compensation done, physical possession carried. Petitions dismissed.

Judgement Link

14. CW / 1587 / 2022 (UNION OF INDIA VS HARENDRA GAWARIA S/O SHRI KHINWA RAM)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2022
Petition filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner has been directed to give appointment to the respondent after rejection of candidature on ground of non-deposition of postal order. This Court finds that Postal Order enclosed with the application form was accepted by the petitioner and then respondent was allowed to participate in the recruitment process. The petitioner is directed to give appointment to respondent. Petition disposed.

Judgement Link

15. CMA / 6017 / 2017 (THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS MANBHAR DEVI AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 03/02/2022
Miscellaneous appeal has been filed by Insurance Company U/S 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, assailing the award passed by the Court of Commissioner, Jaipur against the accident in occurred. Court held that the appeal does not qualify the requirement of involving any substantial question of law, which is mandatory requirement U/S 30 of the Act to admit the appeal. The claimants are entitled to get compensation as awarded by the impugned award. Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

16. CMA / 136 / 2022 (RUDRESH JHUNJHUNWALA SON OF LATE SHRI KRISHANCHAND JHUNJHUNWALA, VS SATISH KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD)

Date of Order/Judgment: 03/02/2022
Appellant challenged application allowed under O.39 Rule 1,2 CPC in suit for specific performance restraining them transfer of disputed property and status quo. Trial Court observed matter requires adjudication after recording evidence as question of fact and law involved. Trial court weighed pleadings, documents, points of balance of convenience and irreparable injury factors. This Court denied interference in Trial Courts order stating appellate power being limited. Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

17. CW / 687 / 2022 (DR. NAVEEN JAKHAR S/O SHRI BHAGWAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 01/02/2022
The present petitions, in-service Doctors challenged order of the State Government changing the cut-off date from 30.04.2021 to 30.09.2021 for counting experience for the purpose of giving bonus marks in NEET-PG. This Court finds that fixing cut-off date if causing hardship to certain candidates, doesn't fall within the purview of article 226 of constitution and the same cannot be a ground to declare such date as arbitrary. Writ dismissed.

Judgement Link

18. CW / 17285 / 2021 (NIRMAL KUMAR PITALIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 01/02/2022
Petitioner challenged suspension done as FIR registered against him for accepting bribe. Urged that no preliminary inquiry, proceedings have commenced. This court opined that the State Government commencing disciplinary proceedings, making up its mind entails the commencing of proceedings u/s 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009. Suspension made as likelihood of him influencing the inquiry and the evidence. Hence, petition dismissed. Directed to conclude inquiry within one month.

Judgement Link

Reportable Judgments of January,2022

1. CW / 9620 / 2021 (M/S. SHERA RAM CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 28/01/2022

Petitioners challenged demand of furnishing additional security by respondents. Court noted that no alternative remedy is available, demand is contrary to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, is stranger to the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules,2013, so, nullity and the amendment to Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement (4th Amendment) Rules,2021 as to additional security came after the NIT issued, so does not apply to the present case. Petition allowed.

Judgement Link

2. CW / 17887 / 2019 (YOGESH GOYANKA S/O SHRI SURECHAND VS GOVIND S/O SHRI KAILASH)

Date of Order/Judgment: 21/01/2022

Present petition challenged the order rejecting petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10. The Court opined that the provisions of Section 52 Transfer of Property Act applies to the facts of the case. The Sub-Registrar made a note, in the sale deed between petitioner and respondent 4, that the matter was sub-judice. Hence the petitioner's claim of having late knowledge, for being party along with being a bonafide purchaser is nullified. Writ petition dismissed.

Judgement Link

3. CMA / 615 / 2007 (THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD VS SMT MOHINI DEVI AND ORS)

Date of Order/Judgment: 12/01/2022

Present appeal challenged the claim allowed by Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Jaipur. The maintainability of this appeal before court u/s 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was challenged as no substantial question of law were framed in the memo of appeal. The court without interfering the factual recordings rejected the appeal on maintainability. Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Link

4. CW / 11993 / 2017 (SMT. SHOBHA DEVI VS JVVNL JODHPUR AND ANR.)

Date of Order/Judgment: 12/01/2022

The order passed by concerned authority rejecting the application of married daughter for compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 was challenged. Court held that order passed was arbitrary, unjust, gender discriminatory and violative of article 14,15&16 of The Constitution of India, Hence, married daughter comes within purview of dependents, order is quashed. Writ petition allowed.

Judgement Link

5. CW / 13178 / 2021 (KUNAL SHARMA S/O SHRI MAN MOHAN SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA)

Date of Order/Judgment: 11/01/2022

The instant writ petition brings to fore the issue that the petitioner no. 1 had not been admitted as ward of insured person and hence was not extended benefit of the same. It was held that respondent-Corporation had acted arbitrarily in issuing the order and petitioner no. 1 would be granted status as ward of insured person. The writ petition allowed while also granting benefit of the ESI quota to the petitioner.

Judgement Link

6. CCP / 722 / 2012 (SMT ANUPAMA SINGH W/O SHRI NARESH CHAND VS SHRI BADRI NARAYAN SHARMA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT)

Date of Order/Judgment: 10/01/2022

Contempt petition was filed alleging the non-compliance of second part of judgement where in respondent was directed to allow the petitioner to join service and to pay consequential benefits. It was held that respondents would be denied default and adjudication of petitioner's claim for payment of actual monetary benefits/back wages for the period during which she has not rendered services, hence dismissed.

Judgement Link

7. CMA / 1679 / 2019 (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS SMT SONIYA W/O LATE VINIT MOYAL)

Date of Order/Judgment: 07/01/2022

The two appeals had been filed by claimant and the insurance company seeking to set aside the award of pay-and-recover from the insurance company. It was held that even in breach of policy by the policy holder, the amount of compensation would be disbursed by the insurance company and same can be recovered later from the policy-holder. Both appeals dismissed.

Judgement Link

8. SAW / 801 / 2018 (PAWAN JAIN S/O SHRI REGHUVAR DAYAL JAIN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 06/01/2022

Petition filed against order directing cancellation of lease if payment of Rs.19,50,000/- not paid, as petitioner alleged to sublet mines against provisions of rule 18(21) of rules, 1986. This court held that authority has not applied its mind to material on record with regard to alleged breach, acted mechanically by not considering provisions of rule 18(2). An order being in violation on statuary mandate and Art. 14 of the COI, suffered from patent illegality. Order set aside; Petition allowed.

Judgement Link

9. SAW / 561 / 2020 (RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK JODHPUR VS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972)

Date of Order/Judgment: 05/01/2022

The said set of writ petitions challenged the Single Bench order upholding the order by the appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It was held, while deciding the said appeals, that dearness allowance would not become part of pay for calculating the amount of gratuity under the Act of 1972. Appeals allowed.

Judgement Link

10. CMA / 1566 / 2021 (MEETA AGARWAL D/O SHR MEENALAL AGARWAL W/O SHRI MANOJKUMAR AGARWAL, VS HATHROIGARI GRAH NIRMAN SEHKARI SAMITI)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/01/2022

The present appeal assails Subordinate Court order, which accepted the application for filing the plaint before the competent court under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. It was held that order passed challenging the pecuniary jurisdiction at final disposal would be against S. 21 CPC. Appeal allowed.

Judgement Link

11. CW / 14040 / 2021 (DR. KARANJEET KAUR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/01/2022

The petitioners challenged the selection process adopted by Rajasthan Public Services Commission (RPSC), which was in conflict with UGC Regulations, 2018. It was held that there was no clarity under the Regulations as to shortlisting of candidates after scores are assigned. Petitions dismissed.

Judgement Link

12. CW / 16367 / 2021 (SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT MANAG. COMMITTEE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN)

Date of Order/Judgment: 04/01/2022

The writ petition raised questions pertaining to rights of the children by challenging the policy decision of the State Government to change the medium of instructions to English in a school. It was held that changing mode of instruction would not be constitutive as a violation of fundamental rights but at the same time right of the students to receive instructions in mother-tongue are protected under Art. 19 of the Constitution. The conversion would be violative of Art. 19 & 14. Allowed.

Judgement Link

RAJASTHAN STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY
Near Jhalamand Circle,
Old Pali Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
Pin- 342 013
Ph. No.: 0291-2720108, 2721788
Mail us at: rsjadir-jod-rj[at]nic[dot]in
rsjadir[at]gmail[dot]com

Reportable Judgments of Rajasthan High Court

Reportable Judgments of July ,2023

Reportable Judgments of June ,2023

Reportable Judgments of May ,2023

Reportable Judgments of April ,2023

Reportable Judgments of March,2023

Reportable Judgments of February ,2023

Reportable Judgments of January ,2023

Reportable Judgments of November ,2022

Reportable Judgments of October,2022

Reportable Judgments of September,2022

Reportable Judgments of August,2022

Reportable Judgments of July,2022

Reportable Judgments of May,2022

Reportable Judgments of April,2022

Reportable Judgments of March,2022

Reportable Judgments of February,2022

Reportable Judgments of January,2022

RAJASTHAN STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY Near Jhalamand Circle, Old Pali Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan). Pin- 342 013 Ph. No.: 0291-2720108, 2721788 Mail us at: rsjadir-jod-rj[at]nic[dot]in rsjadir[at]gmail[dot]com

Reportable Judgments of Rajasthan High Court

Reportable Judgments of July ,2023

Reportable Judgments of June ,2023

Reportable Judgments of May ,2023

Reportable Judgments of April ,2023

Reportable Judgments of March,2023

Reportable Judgments of February ,2023

Reportable Judgments of January ,2023

Reportable Judgments of November ,2022

Reportable Judgments of October,2022

Reportable Judgments of September,2022

Reportable Judgments of August,2022

Reportable Judgments of July,2022

Reportable Judgments of May,2022

Reportable Judgments of April,2022

Reportable Judgments of March,2022

Reportable Judgments of February,2022

Reportable Judgments of January,2022

RAJASTHAN STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY
Near Jhalamand Circle,
Old Pali Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
Pin- 342 013
Ph. No.: 0291-2720108, 2721788
Mail us at: rsjadir-jod-rj[at]nic[dot]in
rsjadir[at]gmail[dot]com