Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 430 Orders/Judgments of the Year (June 2025 – December 2025)Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Plant Ten Times The Number Of Trees Affected By Road Widening & Beautification Work Title: Gyanchand Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201 While...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 430
Orders/Judgments of the Year (June 2025 – December 2025)
Title: Gyanchand Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
While hearing pleas against demolition drives for road widening allegedly conducted without following procedure, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to first count number of plants/trees which are to be removed for beautification work and road expansion, and subsequently plant trees ten times of this number in nearby public areas.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that planting trees and plants was an initiative considered appropriate by the Court, as thriving tree, whether for decades or centuries provided continuous and silent benefits to the city and its surrounding community.
Title: Shrilal v Smt. Bhagwati Devi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
While upholding Trial Court's order of dismissing application to amend the written statement, the bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court held that the plaintiff being the master of the lis could not be compelled to include or exclude particular individuals. Hence, the issue of non-joinder in the amendment did not hold any weight unless the party was indispensable under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC.
“…plaintiff is the master of the lis and it is for him to see as to whom he wants to sue or proceed against and the defendant cannot decide it on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the discretion to choose the parties to be impleaded in a suit. The defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to include or exclude particular individuals.”
Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Anr. v Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 203
In pleas by retired doctors “re-employed” by AIIMS Jodhpur against imposition “Pay minus pension” rule five years after their appointment orders were issued without such condition, the Rajasthan High Court slammed the hospital for being ignorant about the law applicable upon its employees.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that the statutory provisions governing the field of “re-employed” persons could not be excluded merely because of an omission on part of the employer in clarifying the same in the advertisement notice or appointment order.
Furthermore, the Court perused All India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 1999 (“1999 Regulations”) and opined that Regulation 33 indicated that if a retired person was employed at AIIMS, he/she had to be treated as a re-employed person. Further, the Court opined that once it was determined that the petitioners were re-employed, 1986 Orders clearly required application of the rule “pay minus pension”.
At the same time, the Court opined that the lackadaisical and ignorant attitude of AIIMS had led to this controversy. Hence, it was not fair to seek retrospective recovery of the amount already paid to the doctors, at this belated stage for no fault on theirs.
Title: Mohammad Anwar v the Chairman, Rajashtan NEET Ayush, and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 204
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a student whose provisional admission in Rajashtan Unani Medical College, Jaipur, was cancelled after he could not submit original mark-sheets of clearing Biology from the Rajasthan State Open School. It was ruled that if the candidate had met substantive thresholds, strict compliance with technical formalities undermined the object of the admission scheme.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain held that clauses 23 and 31 of the National Council For Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) had to be interpreted using the principles of “Ejusdem Generis” and “Noscitur a Sociis” to mean that while final approval of admission could not be granted without original documents, it did not mandate outright cancellation of a provisional admission if the failure to comply was due to reasons beyond candidate's control.
Title: Shekharchand Sacheti & Anr. v S.M.F.G. India Home Finance Company Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
Rajasthan High Court ruled that since the respondent was already aware of and was not taken by surprise regarding petitioner's invocation of arbitration clause, their plea that the application for appointment of arbitrator was not maintainable since no notice was served under Section 21 of the A&C Act 1996, lacked merit.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also reiterated the principle laid down in the case of M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Private Limited & others v. Hero Fincorp Limited that the SARFAESI Proceedings were in the nature of enforcement while arbitration was an adjudicatory proceedings. Hence, both could proceed parallel.
Title: Hdfc Bank Limited v Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/2025)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 206
The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, recently, passed an interim order in a writ petition filed by HDFC bank. In the interim order, the court stayed the effect and operation of a demand notice issued by the Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu to HDFC Bank.
While considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, the court ordered that the operation and effect of the impugned notice by the Municipal corporation be stayed until the next date of hearing. The bench also clarified that the interim order would come into effect only after the service of notice upon the respondents.
Title: Mohammad Abid & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
The Rajasthan High Court recently noted that Section 170 of the BNSS conferred “limited preventive jurisdiction” to the Executive Magistrate and that such preventive action was not a tool for punitive action or a substitute for criminal procedure.
Justice Farjand Ali criticised the action of an Executive Magistrate in detaining persons and granting them bail on an extra-statutory condition of producing a character certificate. The court noted that instead of operating as a Magistrate under a Constitutional democracy, the Executive Magistrate had acted like a “Raja” dispensing justice at whim.
“It is evident that the Executive Magistrate, instead of acting in accordance with the limited preventive jurisdiction vested in him under B.N.S.S., has arrogated to himself an authority akin to that of a sovereign — operating not as a magistrate under a constitutional democracy, but more as a Raja dispensing justice at whim. The distinction between personal discretion and rule of law lies at the very foundation of our legal system, and the impugned conduct strikes at that very foundation”.
Title: Ramswaroop v Moolchand & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Appellate Rent Tribunal is not expected to reserve judgment for an indefinite period, especially when the arguments in a matter before it were heard and concluded months ago.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that as per Section 19(8) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the Tribunal shall dispose the appeal within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of service of notice of appeal on the respondents.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Balaji Baliram Mupade & Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra & Ors. in which the Apex Court considered it imperative that judicial discipline required promptness in delivery of judgments. Similarly, in another case of Anil Rai v State of Bihar, it was held that once the matters were reserved for pronouncement of order, the same should be done within a reasonable time schedule.
Title: Shankar Lal v Jugal Kishore & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
While relying upon the ruling of the division bench in the case of Ramesh Kumar v Chandu Lal & Another, Rajasthan High Court reiterated that Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (“the Act”) was not mandatory but directory in nature.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Rent Tribunal that rejected the petitioner's application to take on record the affidavit submitted by him on the ground that as per Section 15, these had to be submitted along with the reply.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Sharafat & Anr, and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 210
While setting aside death penalty and acquitting the appellants, accused for murdering a family of 6, including 4 children, Rajasthan High Court held that the importance of last-seen-together evidence could not be "over-emphasized" in a criminal trial as this by itself is not sufficient to record conviction of an accused.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma opined that before the onus shifted on the accused by operation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it must be held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused.
Reference was made to the Apex Court case of Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju v State in which it was held that if a person was last seen with the deceased, he must offer explanation about how he parted company, and if he failed burden under Section 106 was not discharged. However, this did not mean that section 106 shifted the burden of proof of a criminal trial on the accused. Such burden always rested on the prosecution.
Title: Bhawani Pratap Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
While denying regular bail to an NDPS accused, Rajasthan High Court granted a temporary bail of 60 days to take care of his wife who was pregnant, due to deliver a baby in a few days, and had no one else to take care of her and provide medical assistance.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that even though such ground in itself was not sufficient to warrant regular bail, temporary bail could be granted as a balanced approach to accommodate legitimate personal concerns of the accused, while upholding legal sanctity and custodial process.
Title: Hari Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by the alleged encroachers of the catchment area of the Ummed Sagar Dam against State's action of dispossession, the bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal at the Rajasthan High Court held that no possession over land forming part of water body could be regularized.
After hearing the contentions, the Court accepted the arguments put forth on behalf of the State, and highlighted that the land in question was owned by the P.H.E.D. Department and formed part of the catchment area of the Ummed Sagar Dam.
Rajasthan High Court Upholds 25% Domicile Reservation In National Law University Jodhpur
Title: Anindita Biswas v National Law University, Jodhpur & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the constitutional validity of 25% domicile-based reservation at National Law University, Jodhpur (“NLUJ”), ruling that such reservation did not violate Article 14 since the classification was reasonable, non-arbitrary and maintained a rational nexus with the object of advancing regional educational development.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali took note of many other NLUs that have introduced domicile-based reservation based on their respective states, and opined that the state had merely aligned NLUJ with the normative structure followed by its sister NLUs.
Reference was also made to the Supreme Court case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, wherein the Apex Court recognized the permissibility of domicile-based preferences in admissions to higher educational institutions particularly when the institutions were established and maintained by a State.
When Can An Order Passed U/S 47 CPC Be Treated As A Decree? Rajasthan High Court Explains
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that orders passed by courts under Section 47 of the CPC read with Order XXI Rules 58, 97, and 99 of the CPC, would be treated as decrees and are appealable under Section 96 CPC.
Justice Munnuri Laxman noted that Section 47 dealt with both— orders that can be treated as decrees and those that cannot be treated as decrees. The court added that those orders which were passed with reference to Rule 58, 97, and 99 would be considered as decrees as the same has been specifically provided under Rule 58(4) and Rule 103 of Order XXI.
The court noted that all other orders passed under Section 47 [except those under Rule 58,97, and 99] could not be treated as a decree. The court added that since an appeal would lie only from a decree passed by the court as per Section 96, the orders passed under Section 47 read with Rule 58,97 and, 99 were appealable orders and all other orders passed under Section 47 would not be appealable orders.
Title: X v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
Title: Banarsi Das Mittal v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
Upholding the constitutional validity of the Proviso 3 to Rule 16(2) (“the Provision”) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (“2017 Rules”) Rajasthan High Court ruled that once the rule was held to be constitutionally and statutorily valid, any action by the State in furtherance thereof could not be faulted merely on grounds of hardship or inconvenience.
The Provision provided for extension of the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued subject to payment of a penalty at the rate of 10% of the annual dead rent for every month for such extended period from the date of issuance of LOI.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali also observed that mining activity had significant environmental and economic implications, and delays in securing mandatory clearances, even if procedurally cumbersome, could not indefinitely stall the process. “In the broader public interest, the legislature is entitled to place the onus on the applicant to comply expeditiously with statutory prerequisites”.
Title: Ankit Bansal v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 216
Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Ankit Bansal, accused in a Rs. 704 Crore GST evasion scam, on account of his concealment of past criminal antecedents, attempt to abscond from custody using his influence and power, and the magnitude of the siphoned amount.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma rejected the argument of parity on account of the co-accused Mr. Rajesh Goyal being released on bail, ruling that while applying the principle of parity, conduct and role of the accused had to be focused upon.
Rejecting the argument of parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail, the Court specifically referred to the “extraordinary circumstances” in the applicant's case.
“there are clear and manifest antecedents against the petitioner (which have been suppressed by the petitioner) and the magnitude of allegations against him is quite higher, which is crossing more than 700 Crores. Since during the pendency of instant bail application, the accused-petitioner has attempted to abscond, which evidently involves extraordinary circumstances…Hence, in the light of the above possibility of his absconding and influencing the witnesses can not be ruled out.”
Title: Mushtaq Ali v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 217
While acquitting a police constable charged under Section 223 (IPC) following absconsion of two under-trial prisons from his guard, Rajasthan High Court held that when a police officer was tasked with dual and simultaneous duties like guarding as well as attending wireless operations, expectations of flawless supervision must be weighed against practical limitations of manpower and infrastructure.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further held that the primary requirement of Section 223 i.e. criminal negligence, was fulfilled on gross and culpable failure to exercise the degree of care which an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. Not every error in judgment, lapse, or inadvertence constituted criminal negligence.
Title: Smt. Kailash Kanwar Rathore & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 218
Rajasthan High Court highlighted the growing concern of Indian businesses and corporate entities owing to unwarranted freezing of bank accounts by the investigating authorities in a mechanical manner implicating significant financial hardships on the concerned parties.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg opined that such actions were frequently predicated merely on allegations or suspicion of tainted funds being credited into the accounts of innocent business entities or individuals that severely impaired operational functioning of the business.
Title: X v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by a mother seeking termination of pregnancy of her minor daughter (17 years, 5 months old) in light of the daughter's unwillingness to abort the pregnancy, upholding the right of a pregnant minor victim to retain her pregnancy.
Highlighting that the minor victim had sufficient level of understanding about the consequences of her actions, the bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali observed that pregnant woman had the autonomy over her body and it was only she who had the right to choose whether to terminate the pregnancy or not.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Suchita Srivastava & Anr. Vs. Chandigarh Administration wherein it was held that right to make reproductive choices was a facet of Art. 21, and the consent of the pregnant women in the matter of such choices was paramount. No entity, even the state, could speak on behalf of the pregnant person and usurp her consent.
Title: Mahir Bishnoi v National Testing Agency & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 220
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to an IIT-JEE aspirant who was barred by the National Testing Agency from giving the exam for academic sessions 2025-26 and 2026-27 after he was allegedly found using unfair means and was looking into the answer sheet of a fellow candidate sitting right adjacent to him.
While highlighting that such a stigmatising penalty could not have been inflicted without providing an opportunity of hearing, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that the inflicted penalty would certainly spoil the petitioner's career and create an impediment on his way to getting public employment.
Title: Ashutosh Bajoria v Rajesh Kumar Sharma (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 12/2023)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a man, arrested in a PMLA case, to travel to Dubai and Singapore for business meetings— reiterating that the expression 'personal liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to go abroad.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) where it was held that “the expression 'personal liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wider amplitude, which includes right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law”.
Title: Kailash v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
The Rajasthan High Court held that a conviction which had been recorded cannot be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry into the juvenility of the accused was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015 would be attracted
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that a recorded conviction could not be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board as required under Section 25 of the
“Otherwise, the accused who has committed a heinous offence and who did not claim juvenility before the Trial Court would be allowed to go scot free… The object under the JJ Act, 2015 dealing with the rights and liberties of the juvenile is only to ensure that he or she could be brought into the main stream by awarding lesser sentence and also directing for other facilities for welfare of the juvenile, in conflict with law, during his/her stay in any of the institutions defined under the JJ Act, 2015,” the court said.
Title: Kiran Yadav v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the hallmark of judicial pronouncements is its stability and finality and thus, they should not be unsettled lightly.
"Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather," Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand remarked while dealing with a plea against cancellation of Petitioner's appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor.
It was observed that in a country governed by the Rule of Law, the finality of a judgment was absolutely imperative and it was not permissible for the parties to re-open concluded judgments of the Court.
Title: Kumari Neelam v Jai Prakash Natani & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 224
While hearing a challenge to the compensation of Rs. 1.49 crores awarded by the motor accident tribunal to a 21-year-old woman, Rajasthan High Court observed that the 100% lower body paralysis of the road-accident victim was not just an injury, but a “deep enduring rupture in the fabric of her life” that affected her sense of identity, independence and confidence.
The high court thus enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,49,88,153 Crores awarded by the tribunal to Rs. 1,90,68,153 Crores.
The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena further opined that any support or compensation received by her whether from the legal system or the society at large was not a favour but a necessary step towards justice, inclusion and human dignity, and the same must acknowledge not just the cost of medical case but the loss of opportunities, dignity and dreams. The court said that it had placed barriers to her path to family life and created heavy burden for those who loved and supported her.
Title: Shivsingh Meena v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 225
The Rajasthan High Court recently enlarged an NDPS accused on bail on a condition that he contribute to government's Swach Bharat mission for 2 hours daily, for two months.
In doing so, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain extended the scope of 'community service' contemplated under the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
The Act introduced community service as a punishment for certain minor offences, as a reformative approach to justice.
Justice Jain said, "as an extended interpretation of the provisions of 'community service' as enshrined under the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, and as a reformative approach to re-include the accusedapplicant back in the society with a better vision, aim and zeal in life, this court deems it fit to impose an ancillary condition upon the applicant, therefore, it is directed that the accused-applicant shall contribute to the Swach Bharat Abhiyan."
Title: M/s My Own Eco Energy Private Limited v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 226
The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman at the Rajasthan High Court has observed that drop-in bio fuels fall under the definition of petroleum and petroleum products, and would classify as essential commodities and would be subject to application of Central Government's Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005.
The Control Order empowered the Central Government to permit the direct sale of bio-diesel for blending with High Speed Diesel to all consumers only as per the limits and standards prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards.
Title: Babu Lal v the State of Rajasthan & Other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 227
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a batch of pleas by three persons–including a woman–seeking quashing of an FIR accusing them of a "large scale conspiracy" involving fabrication of educational credentials and impersonation in public examination, observing that these were grave offences “of public importance”.
Justice Sameer Jain ruled that the findings recorded by the Special Operations Group (“SOG”) collectively substantiated a "prima facie case" against the petitioners, and premature quashing of FIRs would result in abuse of legal process and prejudicing rights of legitimate aspirants.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Bhajan Lal v State of Haryana in which it was held that only in the “rarest of rare cases” the High Court should exercise its extraordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS, when allegation, even if acceptable at the face value, did not make out a cognizable offence, or if the registration was with malafide, collusion or ulterior motive.
Title: Bhomaram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 228
Terming the action of the State as “Gross inaction and illegal”, Rajasthan High Court directed the District Supply Officer to provide order's copy to the petitioner under which the Fair Price Shop License was granted in favour of the private respondent as opposed to the petitioner.
The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that the petitioner had the statutory remedy under Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976, which he could not avail without the order. Hence, the State was directed to provide the same to the petitioner within one week.
Title: M/S Soltown Infra Private Limited & Ors. v. Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 229
Rajasthan High Court ruled that power to blacklist a contractor was inherent in the party allotting the contract, without there being need for such power conferred by statute.
Blacklisting of a firm found to have committed fraud was not a concept foreign to contractual law. The law specifically provided for restraining any firm to enter into further business relations with a party if it was found to have committed fraud with the other party, it held.
The bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that the right to take such decisions if exercised between private parties was absolute, and if exercised by the State or its instrumentalities, was subject to judicial review on the touchstone of principles of natural justice and doctrine of proportionality.
Title: Shakti Singh & Ors. v Smt. Raj & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 230
While taking note of lack of legal education and training to the officers posted in Revenue Courts and Revenue Appellate Courts (collectively referred to as “Revenue Courts”), as well as the huge pendency in these courts, Rajasthan High Court suggested necessary proactive and corrective measures.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that the orders passed by Revenue Courts determine land ownership, tenancy rights, mutation, partition, declaration of khatedari rights, etc., immensely impacting not only their lives, but also lives of next generations of such litigants. Hence, living in the 21st century, poor functioning of the Revenue Courts cannot be allowed to proceed at a snail's pace, it said.
It observed that several officers posted in Revenue Courts are not acquainted with the procedure contained under the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the Indian Evidence Act and that is why, procedural lapses occur when they conduct trial of the cases.
Steps were suggested by the Court to ensure effective administration of justice in the Revenue Courts.
Title: Roshan Yadav v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 231
Rajasthan High Court rejected the petitions filed by 31 candidates who appeared for NEET-UG 2025 in Sikar, Rajasthan, seeking re-examination or bonus marks owing to power failure/outage and adverse weather conditions at their exam centers, on account of the principle of de minimis non curate lex— meaning, the law did not concern itself with trifles.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain took into account the fact that there were 98 centers allotted in Sikar out of which around 15 centers were adversely impacted due to power failure affecting 5,390 candidates. Out of these, only 31 had approached the Court. Such isolated grievances by statistically negligible candidate could not vitiate a large-scale pan-India level examination, the Court said.
Title: Bhaya Lal Bhagriya vs Union Of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 232
The Rajasthan High Court recently directed the Union Government to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the repatriation of the mortal remains of an Indian-origin man who passed away in the United Kingdom in April 2025, just one month after acquiring British citizenship.
With this, a bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal set aside a communication given by the Under Secretary (External Affairs Minister's Office) denying issuance of NOC to the son of the deceased.
Title: Dharmendra Kumar Bhardwaj v Ramesh Jain & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 233
The Rajasthan High Court has expressed pain over several appeals being pending before various Appellate Rent Tribunals for the last several years, opining that great hardship was being caused to the decree holders who failed to enjoy the fruits of the decrees, as well as the judgment debtors who suffered due to the long pendency of the appeal.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that eviction matters should be given priority in disposal at all stages of litigation, and expressed its hope that due attention shall be paid by all tribunals to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases. The order's copy was directed to be circulated to all judicial officers in Rent Tribunals and Appellate Rent Tribunals in the state.
Title: Anuj Kumar Kumawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 234
Stating that "fair criticism of a verdict is permissible", the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition moved by a law student challenging some passages of his University exam paper that commented on Supreme Court's judgment in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi – Babari Mosque case.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed,
“An academic or personal opinion expressed by a Student or Teacher or Scholar on a legal judgment, even one involving sensitive issues, cannot be equated with any religion attack. If a citizen writes an essay or critique on a verdict of the Court, reflecting personal interpretation, the same must be viewed as a positive and constructive exercise in legal reasoning and critical analysis, so long as it does not amount to contempt of Court.”
Title: Suresh v Dhruv Narayan Purohit & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 235
The Rajasthan High Court held that a suit for eviction could not be held to be barred even if the question of necessity had been decided against the landlord on previous occasions, on the ground that the landlord would never have bonafide and genuine necessity in future.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a challenge against a successive suit for eviction. It was the petitioner's case that on an earlier occasion, an eviction suit was filed by the landlord based on the need to run a saree shop, which was rejected. Now again, an eviction suit was filed for operating a tours and travels business, which was barred by res judicata.
Title: Tulachhi wife of Dhanraj v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 236
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition filed by a liquor license owner apprehending that her license won't be renewed owing to an amendment in the Rajasthan Excise and Legal Temperance Policy 2024-25 (“the Policy), ruling that the petition was pre-matured, and that mere apprehension of not being granted renewal under new Policy was not enough to maintain the petition.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Sandeep Shah held that it was well settled that a new policy would operate prospectively, and the persons carrying on the business in a legal manner under the old policy could not be subjected to the rigors of the new policy.
Title: Jitendra Goyal v Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 237
The Rajasthan High Court held that despite no renewal application being made by the trade-mark holder even after seven years of expiry, the Registrar of Trade Marks could not remove the registered Trade-Mark from the official record without following the process under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (“the Act”) and the rule 58 of the Trade Mark rules, 2017 (“the Rules”).
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that it was clear that the respondent was supposed to comply with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice before expiration of the trademark before proceeding to remove it from the official record.
Title: Firm Jehtmal & Sons v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 238
Rajasthan High Court has set aside a Sessions Court order dismissing an appeal against conviction under Section 138 NI Act over non-appearance of the appellant's counsel.
Opining the judgment to be passed in a "mechanical and cursory manner", without application of mind and against the principle of natural justice, the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg held that a party could not be allowed to suffer the consequences of counsel's negligence.
“…numerous rulings affirm that a party should not be penalized or prejudiced due to the negligence or misconduct of their legal counsel. The rationale underpinning this position is rooted in the recognition that the integrity of judicial proceedings depends on the principles of fairness and justice.”
Title: Sagar Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 239
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to the petitioner who was terminated from service 15 years after being granted compassionate appointment, on the ground that he was ineligible for appointment for having 3 children. Considering that no concealment was made by the petitioner and the appointment happened after due diligence by State, the Court set aside termination.
Underscoring the objective of compassionate appointment, the bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur opined that it was a well-settled position that compassionate appointment polices shall not be enforced with undue rigidity. Disqualification for having three children would override the humanitarian objective of the scheme.
Title: Munesh Gurjar v the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 240
Rajashtan High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Mayor of Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Heritage, against an order of the State by which she was placed under suspension owing to alleged involvement in a corruption incident along with her husband.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that instead of challenging the suspension order on merits, the petitioner had challenged the same on technical counts like the notice issued under Section 39(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 not being digitally signed, and a copy of appointment order of the Enquiry Officer not being provided to her.
The Court observed that being a public representative, the Petitioner was expected to act and conduct with dignity and graceful manner, but instead she had been charged with the offence of corruption which was widely regarded as “cancer” for the society.
Title: Prakash Manda v The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 241
The Rajasthan High Court held that no order of termination on account of questionable integrity could be passed under Clause 8(iii) and (iv) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (“the Orders”) without holding any enquiry.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the consequence of non-fulfilment of conditions in Clause 8(iii) of the Orders did not automatically entail into termination of the services of the probationer, more particularly when the person was charged for some illegality, then holding of enquiry was mandatory.
“In the present case, since the petitioner was found involved in carrying passengers without tickets and the allegation was that his integrity is questionable, consequently, his services were terminated, therefore, the same can easily be termed as an “order of termination” having been passed with stigma. Since the petitioner's services are being terminated on the ground of questionable integrity, therefore, the same is a stigmatic order and in such circumstances, holding of enquiry was sine-quo-non.”
Title: Angel Soni v The National Testing Agency & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 242
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the petition by a student seeking directions to the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) to provide her additional time to improve her marks in the 12th standard by way of supplementary exams and become eligible for admission to an IIT.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said:
“As per Rule 72, the revised marks are required to be furnished for seat allocation prior to the date of participation in the counselling. A complete mechanism has been provided for granting admission for the academic session, which cannot be disturbed by this Court, under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence, under these circumstances, relief sought for, cannot be granted by this Court and the petition is liable to be and is hereby rejected.”
Title: Purnamal Verma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 243
The Rajasthan High Court took note of numerous cases wherein orders for removal of Panchayat Members were passed without adhering to the mandatory provisions and procedures of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, observing that it appeared that Enquiry Officers were not well-versed with the provisions.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Divisional Commissioners, and District Collectors, to inform all the Chief Executive Officers of Panchayat Samitis about the importance of Rule 22, to prevent future errors.
The court said so after noting that in a democratic set up an elected representation represents the voice of the people that elected them and hence removal of such officials must be carried out carefully.
Title: Anand Prakash Agarwal & Ors. v The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 244
In a plea filed by four Court Masters challenging seniority list of Assistant Registrars claiming that despite being senior they had been put below Administrative Officers (Judicial) in the seniority list and were denied promotion, the Rajasthan High Court observed that criteria for promotion to the post is based on merit.
The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal referred to Clause 12 of a December 5, 2002 issued in pursuance to Rules 4, 5, and 7 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules 2002 and observed that the language of the order was clear that the criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar shall be based on merit.
Title: Sunil Kumar Gupta v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 245
Expressing displeasure at the State for its "insensitivity and apathy" in denying salary and service benefits to an 80% disabled employee, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to issue necessary order to all departments to identify disabled employees and grant them benefit under Clause 20(4) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal said,
"The aforesaid case is a classic case reflecting the insensitivity and apathy of the respondents towards the plight of a disabled person who has been denied benefit under the Act of 2016 by the respondents for last about five and a half year without any justification which frustrates the laud object of the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In the aforesaid factual context, this Court deems it just and proper to issue a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan to issue necessary instruction/circular to all the Government Departments to identify such disabled employees, if any, and to extend them benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016 in its letter and spirit, immediately".
It was further opined that such act on part of the State to not provide benefits to the disabled government employee who was eligible under the Act also amounted to violation of his fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21.
Title: Bipul Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 246
The Rajasthan High Court upheld denial of bail to a juvenile charged with the allegations of “brutally” murdering a person along with the co-accused, on grounds of gravity of the offence, his direct involvement and absence of compelling reasons to grant bail.
Underscoring the awareness of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (the “Act”), the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed that under provisions of BNSS, the gravity of offence significantly influenced the court's decision to grant or deny bail.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the release of a juvenile was preferred unless there existed a belief that such release might associate the juvenile with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological harm, or otherwise such release might frustrate the objective of justice.
Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Munni & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 247
While rejecting an insurance company's plea challenging Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal's award granting over Rs. 66 Lakh compensation to a 58-year-old deceased government servant's kin, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that adoption of the split multiplier method for calculating compensation was impermissible in law.
The court further reiterated that major dependant children are entitled to compensation while married children's dependancy has to be evaluated carefully.
Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Maya Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025), Justice Ganesh Ram Meena reiterated that adoption of the split-multiplier method "is now impermissible in law" for being arbitrary and speculative.
Title: Rasida Khatoon v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 248
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea by Chairperson of a Municipal Council suspended for allegedly misusing her position to "illegally" grant title-deeds in favour of persons known to her, observing that the official cannot claim immunity on the ground that no action was taken against another official who had also signed the title deeds.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not meant to "perpetuate any illegality" even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases.
"If any wrong is committed by the authorities, then in similar matter it cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. Equality cannot be claimed in illegality and, therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. This Court trusts and believes that appropriate action would be taken by the respondents against all the erring Officers who are involved in the incident of issuing illegal pattas in contravention of the Rules," the court added.
The Court also made a reference to the coordinate bench decision in Narendra Kumar Khodaniya v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. to state, the principle of “delegated power cannot be further delegated” was not applicable in administrative action or ministerial act, rather to statutory judicial and quasi-judicial function.
Title: Harish Madhan v Kshema Power and Infrastructure co. pvt. ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 249
Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the Trial Court that rejected petitioner's application seeking refund of Court Fees in light of settlement on the ground that the settlement was reached at the appellate stage after decree was passed by the trial court.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that the district judge seemed to have committed a grave error in interpreting the provision of Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1961(“the Act”) opining that the interpretation went against the intent and spirit of Section 89, CPC.
“A perusal of the above, clearly leaves no manner of doubt that, as long as the matter is settled between the parties qua their dispute, as envisaged under Section 89 CPC, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of full amount of the fee paid in respect of the court fees affixed on the plaint...If the view taken by the learned trial court is sustained that would result in a fallacious & erroneous approach, inasmuch as, settlement arrived between the parties at appellate stage would disentitled them any refund of court fees, which goes against very intent and the spirit of geniality envisaged under Section 89 CPC.”
Title: Ibra v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 250
The Rajasthan High Court has come down heavily upon staff working at subordinate courts in the state for going on strike, calling it illegal and uncalled for directing them to resume the duty latest by July 25.
The court said that while the issue of redesigning cadre strength of court staff was already being looked into by the government, the Rajasthan Judicial Employees Association had directly written to the Chief Minister, not through the high court Registrar General calling it a serious act of indiscipline.
Underscoring Supreme Court rulings to the effect that lawyers did not have right to strike as it affected fundamental rights of litigant to speedy justice, Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that employees who were getting bread and butter from money of the tax payers could not resort to a strike.
Title: Ashok Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 251
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to government teachers whose promotion to the post of senior teachers was overturned on the ground that the B.A. Additional course undertaken by them for being eligible for the post was just a certificate/vacation evaluation course and not equivalent to the degree course.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur found the decision of the State to be "erroneous" in light of the reply filed by the University from which the course was done. As per the reply submitted by the Mewar University, the duration of the B.A. additional course was not 90 days but one year.
"In the considered opinion of this Court, nothing has come on record which shows that the B.A. Additional Course conducted by the respondent-University is not recognized, therefore, the B.A. Additional Course conducted by the University is held to be equivalent to the eligibility condition mentioned in Schedule-1 of the Rules of 2008 and, therefore, the certificates/vacational B.A. Additional Course possessed by the petitioners are held to be valid as per the Rules of 2008. Thus, the promotions granted to the petitioners on the post of Senior Teacher is just, proper and correct as they are holding the requisite qualification for the post"
Title: Sammaan Capital v District Magistrate & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 252
The Rajasthan High Court has expressed displeasure over the order by a District Magistrate, who, while allowing an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the “SARFAESI Act”), attached a condition of non-execution in case of any dispute regarding title/possession over the property.
While terming it “totally unwarranted”, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that in light of clear orders being issued in earlier cases to all the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates/District Magistrates, it was expected that in future, such orders shall be followed without any adventure in their interpretation.
Title: Arun Fatehpuria & Anr. v Tarachand Tholia
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 253
The Rajasthan High Court has held that merely on account of rent payment through the bank account of a partnership firm, the latter did not automatically become the tenant when the tenancy agreement was entered into with the partner(s) of that firm and not the partnership firm itself.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that even though, in general law, the “partnership firm” was not a distinct legal entity, the definition of “tenant” under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (“the Act”) included a person by whom or on whose behalf the rent was paid.
Title: Pushp Chand v Smt. Madhu Rathi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 254
Rejecting a time-barred restoration application filed by two out of nine plaintiffs in the original suit pertaining to a property dispute which was dismissed based on compromise, the bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court said that the silence of the remaining seven plaintiffs for over 2 decades was seen as acquiescence and tacit endorsement.
"The defendants case is that a settlement was arrived with the plaintiffs. It was pursuant to this compromise that the plaintiffs' counsel withdrew the suit. Notably, seven plaintiffs have never contested this fact. Their silence over such a material issue for over two decades supports the inference of a concluded compromise and deliberate and intentional withdrawal of the suit. The assertion by the defendants that a settlement had been reached—followed by payment and subsequent withdrawal—finds substantial support in the silence of seven plaintiffs for over two decades. Their silence, when they were neither minor nor infirm, amounts to acquiescence. Courts view long-standing silence on material issues as tacit endorsement. In this case, it strongly reinforces the inference that the withdrawal was a part of a concluded compromise, thereby making the attempt at restoration unjust and disruptive to settled expectations".
Secondly, the Court opined that despite living in the same city where the litigation was pending, the fact that the respondents did not came to know about the dismissal defied both judicial expectations of diligence as well as ordinary prudence that for over two years no attempt was made to contact the counsel regarding the case's progress.
Title: Suresh Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 255
While setting aside attachment proceedings over a disputed property Rajasthan High Court held that if the land in question belonged to a private individual, passing an order that failed to specify duration of police custody of the land rendered the direction illegal, vague and unsustainable.
Justice Farjand Ali further observed that continues possession of the land by the police in absence of any pending civil or revenue litigation in its relation was not only unjustified, rather, an alien thing to legal notion.
Title: Mohammad Muslim v The Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 256
Rajasthan High Court allowed an application by an accused charged under Section 498A, IPC, to travel to Mecca-Madina for performing the religious rituals of Haj, for a period of two months, opining that denying permission to travel abroad for religious purposes, owing to pendency of criminal case under the provision amounted to violation of right under Article 21.
While issuing a judicial direction to all subordinate courts, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that whenever an application was submitted by an accused to travel abroad, clear order of granting/not granting the permission shall be passed, to aid the Passport Authority to take appropriate decisions.
“It is observed by this Court on many occasions that because of non-passing of clear and specific orders, the Passport Authority is not in a position to take appropriate decision. Henceforth, it is expected from all the subordinate courts to pass clear and specific orders whenever such application is submitted by the accused seeking permission to go abroad to avoid any kind of confusion in the mind of the Passport Authority,” said the Court.
August 2025
Title: Sohan Singh v Rajkidevi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
The Rajasthan High Court has held that in case allegations in a plaint make out a case of the transfer of a property being voidable, only the civil courts shall have jurisdiction, and not the revenue courts, irrespective of the disputed property being an agricultural land and a bar on the same under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”).
Section 207 of the Act lays down that certain suits and applications relating to agricultural land must be heard and determined exclusively by a revenue court.
The bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma was hearing a revision petition challenging order of the Trial Court that rejected petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, seeking dismissal of the suit filed by respondent.
Title: Manni Devi v Rama Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 258
The Rajasthan High Court has opined that when daughters belonging to non-Scheduled Tribe (“ST”) communities were entitled to equal share in father's property, there was no reason to deny the same right to the daughters of the ST community.
Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down the scope of application of the Act, and Section 2(2) gives states that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.
Noting that Section 2(2) of the Act was operates as "barrier in the way of female tribal asserting their rights in their father's property", Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said that it was "right and high time" for the Union Government to revisit the provision and if deemed fit to "amend the same" to safeguard and promote the rights of Female Members of the Scheduled Tribe community.
Title: Ram Kishan v Ram Dai & Ors.
Citation: 2025 Live Law (Raj) 259
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the trial court's decision in an ex parte proceeding in which a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was allowed against the petitioner based on the fact that the service of summons was incomplete under Order 5, Rule 17, CPC.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that service of summons by affixing notice at a house without verifying the address of the noticee by obtaining signatures of an independent witness could not be treated as complete.
“Process Server failed to secure the signature of witness, residing in the same vicinity, in the report of service of summons. It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Process Server, proceedings as well as ex-parte judgment and decree was passed against the petitioner…On the basis of such unverified report, the Trial Court treated the service as complete.”
Title: Raisuddin v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 260
Upholding an order acquitting a man accused of kidnapping a girl, the Rajasthan High Court refused to accept the certificate issued by the girl's school as proof of age in absence of any document or evidence of school staff or register admission form or mark sheet based on which such the certificate was issued.
The court said that certificate issued by a school can only be based on the entries made in scholar register maintained by the school which were made based on the entry mentioned in admission form filled by parents or guardian of the student, neither of which were on record.
Justice Farjand Ali observed “Ostensibly, a certificate of the school can only be issued based on the entries made in scholar register maintained by the school and entries in scholar register are to be made on the basis of the entry mentioned in admission form filled by parents or guardian of the student…neither the admission form nor the scholar register or any mark-sheet has been brought on record nor any officer of the School has been examined to establish the above fact. As per section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, only the register maintained by a public school is a relevant fact and thus admissible for the evidence. A certificate, veracity of which is not known as to who issued it, cannot be made basis to determine the age of any incumbent. This Court is of the view that Exhibit P-9 cannot be made a basis for determining the age of victim and thus the learned trail court has rightly discarded it"
Title: Chandra Kant Ramawat v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 261
The Rajasthan High Court said that in cases where "prima facie electronic evidence" in form of voice/video recording is available against accused, then it would be travesty of justice to not allow prosecution against them for non-fulfilment of requirement of prior approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur said that while prior approval under Section 17A for prosecution aims to protect public officials from malicious complaints, however the provision cannot be used a tool to protect corrupt officials who made a recommendation or had taken a particular decision for their own benefit.
Title: Riteesh Kumar Jyotishi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 262
Upholding the 2021 Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination result, the Rajasthan High Court said that the normalization process followed was as per law and the accommodation granted to female candidates to appear for the exam one day prior on account of Karwa Chauth does not violate Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the final selection list on the ground that normalization methodology adopted by the Examination Board was applied ex-post facto and was also in contravention with law.
Title: Garvit Vyas v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 263
The Rajasthan High Court held that the Indian Body Builders Federation (IBBF) is a national level body duly recognized by the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, and hence the certificates issued by it were recognizable and deserved to be considered for the purpose of recruitment and weightage of marks.
The division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu further highlighted that if the certificate was not considered since IBBF was not recognized by the Indian Olympic Association (“IOA”), there would be no national level body whose certificate could be held to be valid since there was no other body recognized at the national level by IOA.
Title: Manish Saini v Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 264
The Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on a school that sent an erroneously filled examination form of a student to the CBSE for compartment examination, and also issued an incorrect “Transfer Certificate” based on which the petitioner completed his graduation.
The high court imposed the cost on the school to be paid in one month to the petitioner noting he was "harassed unnecessarily". The court further said that sending an incorrect examination form of the petitioner to the Board and issuing him an erroneous Transfer Certificate showing him as “XII Passed” indicates gross negligence on the part of the School.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if any fault was committed by the school authorities, the petitioner student could not be made to suffer in a way that jeopardized his entire future and career.
Title: Smt. Mariya v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 265
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a 32-year old woman, accused in a dual murder case, opining that her situation was inherently vulnerable since she had a five year old son and no familial support to look after him.
“This innocent child, in the crucial formative years of his development, is deprived of the essential care, guidance, and emotional sustenance that only a mother can provide…Such involuntary deprivation not only inflicts severe emotional and psychological distress upon the petitioner but also undermines the child's welfare and well-being…This separation, therefore, transcends mere physical distance, amounting to a profound denial of the petitioner's elemental right to motherhood and care giving, thereby compounding her already precarious and vulnerable predicament,” said the bench of Justice Farjand Ali.
Title: Sarla Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 266
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the suspension of the Chairperson of a Municipal Board accused of misconduct, however it continued an inquiry initiated against her under Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009 instituted after the concerned area was converted from a gram panchayat to a municipality.
The court observed that inquiry initiated under either provisions of the Panchyati Raj Act or the Municipalities Act may continue even after expiry of the elected member's term against whom misconduct is alleged, as the member cannot escape accountability merely because their term has ended.
Justice Sunil Beniwal in his order compared inquiry provisions of Panchyati Raj Act and Municipalities Act and said:
"A comparative reading of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 and Section 40 of the Act of 2009 clearly indicates that an inquiry initiated under either provision may continue even after the expiry of the term of the elected member against whom the misconduct is alleged. What emerges from a plain reading of both provisions is that a person accused of misconduct cannot escape his/her accountability merely because his/her term has ended".
Title: Seher Gogia v The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
Stating that children born to Indian citizens outside India often face great challenges relating to citizenship, the Rajasthan High Court has urged the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to revisit the provisions of laws related to the issue, and if deemed necessary, make necessary amendments.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was dealing with a petition filed by a 5 year old girl. She was born to Indian citizens in Australia and thus acquired citizenship of that country. She moved the Court seeking visa extension, which was in astray amid matrimonial dispute between her parents.
The Court directed the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (“FRRO”) to extend her visa for maximum period without insisting on mother's NOC, and also to consider her application for issuance of Overseas Citizenship of India Card (“OCI Card”),“sympathetically” within 3 months.
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 268
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a father's petition to terminate his minor daughter's pregnancy following alleged rape on the basis of the daughter's unwillingness to undergo the procedure. The Court opined that the consent given by the guardians could not override the autonomy and decision of the pregnant victim.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that granting permission, as sought by the parents, would not only violate the victim's Right to Life but also infringe the right to life of the fetus/unborn child in the womb of the victim, as guaranteed under Article 21.
No Suspension Of Vehicle's Registration Without Proof Of Overloading: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Kanwar Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 269
The Rajasthan High Court said that the orders passed by the District Transport Officer, Kothputli suspending registration of vehicles based on allegations by Department of Mines that vehicles were overloaded without actual weighing the vehicles, were unsustainable.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that the orders were passed merely on the basis of an assumption, relying solely on the report received from the Mining Department, and without actually measuring the weights of the vehicles.
“…order of suspension of registration of the vehicles shall be passed by the Transport Department, only after physical verification of the vehicles, including weighing and measurements of such vehicles that too solely in the cases where overloading is found and established upon such verification. The registration of vehicles should not be suspended based merely on the allegations of overloading on the basis of data or information received from the Department of Mines.”
Title: M/s Mdindia Health Insurance Pvt. Ltd. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 270
The Rajasthan High Court held that an order of blacklisting beyond the scope of charges in the show cause notice was not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but also amounted to a denial of opportunity, affecting the right of business of the aggrieved party.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition by an insurance company, which was appointed as a Third Party Administrator for the Rajasthan Government Health Scheme, against the order of the State that blacklisted it from participating in other tender processes for 3 years.
Title: District Transport Officer, Haumangarh v Banwarilal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 271
The Rajasthan High Court held that merely because the transport vehicle for carriage of passengers was mentioned in the definition u/s 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (“Act”), Permanent Lok Adalat (“PLA”) had no jurisdiction to entertain an application regarding imposition of tax or the rate of imposition of tax in a particular matter.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi observed that rate of imposition of tax by the Transport Department did not fall under the category of “Public Utility Services” under Section 22A(b) of the Act, and hence, at what rate the tax will be imposed on a particular vehicle could not be brought within that category.
Title: Ankita Singodia v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
The Rajasthan High Court constituted an expert committee at AIIMS Delhi to examine an MBBS student who became blind after completing 2 years of the course, and recommend appropriate modalities and methodologies to enable her to complete the course.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that there were multiple people, in India and overseas, who became successful doctors despite visual impairment. It referred to Right of Persons with Disabilities Act and said that while framing the guidelines, Doctors with disabilities ought to have been considered.
“The competency of a Doctor with disability cannot be assumed, as unless it is experienced one may not understand the same.If a person with visual impairment is already a Doctor, it shall be possible for a blind person to be a Doctor. It seems to be a difficult struggle for these blind men to achieve what they want. Being blind need not destroy one's dreams.”
Title: Arman v Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 273
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court expressed shock with a school for failing to send a student's examination form for writing improvement exam to CBSE despite three reminders, observing that the school's casual approach is an "attempt to spoil the future" and one year of the student's academic career.
In view of the fact that the school had already compensated the student of Rs. 1.10 Lakhs and student had been allowed to appear in the repeat paper for the subject, the court disposed of the plea while directing CBSE to declare the result in a week.
Title : Continental Engineering Corporation Limited v Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 274
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Chandra Prakash Shrimali has held that merely if an application filed under Section 10, Commercial Courts Act (“CCA”) does not mention Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) in the heading, it does not mean that the application cannot be treated as an application under Section 34, ACA. Filing the application under Section 10, CCA and annexing the Section 34 petition fulfils the requirement of Section 34 and such a filing is not defective or untenable in law.
The Court observed that merely mentioning a wrong heading of provision on the application would not defeat the cause of justice. The contents of the application are required to be seen and not the provision mentioned on it. The court can understand by a bare reading of the application as to under which provision the same has been filed and what the litigant means to plead before the court. The Court observed that from a perusal of the application moved by the Appellant it was apparent that the application filed by the Appellant was of the nature of raising objections against dismissal of the award by the Tribunal.
Title: Nisha Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a woman claiming to be the widow of a man, to complete her Diploma Course in Elementary Education under ST (Widow) Category, despite challenge to her status of “widow” by the subsequent wife of the deceased.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the status of the petitioner as “widow” or “divorced wife” of the deceased could not be adjudicated by it as it is a disputed question of fact. It however said that since she was allowed to continue the course based on an interim order, she could not be deprived of the benefit now.
"It is for the petitioner and the respondent No.8 (subsequent wife) to approach the appropriate forum of law for declaration of their status. But looking to the fact that by way of passing an interim order dated 21.10.2024 passed by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to undergo her studies of Diploma Course in Elementary Education and she has completed the same, now, at the verge of completion of the aforesaid course, she cannot be deprived from the benefit of studies, which she has underwent under the protection of the interim order passed by this Court".
Title: Mrs. Nirmala Kabra v The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 276
The Rajasthan High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to decide all pending Trademark registration applications expeditiously, observing that it was expected of the authority to come up with a "strategy" to address the issue of "backlogs".
The court passed the order while hearing a petition seeking expeditious decision on a 15-year-old trademark registration application of the mark 'Breastone'.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand expressed "surprise" and "shock" over the present case, noting that the application for registration had been lying pending for adjudication for over one and half decade i.e. more than fifteen years which is a "clear act of violation" of the mandatory provisions of Rule 50, Trade Mark Rules 2017.
"A fast and simple mechanism to secure the Intellectual Property Rights and in terms to secure the business, is tantamount and a need of the hour. By addressing this issue of delay in disposal of the pending Trademark Registration Applications, in an expeditious manner, the system can better serve the purpose in resolving the Trademark disputes fairly and effectively, upholding the principles of justice and maintaining public confidence," it added.
Title: Manav Seva Samiti v Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 277
Rajasthan High Court set aside an order that rejected a public charitable trust's application for condonation of 700-day delay in filing its audit report under form 10-B of the Income Tax Act, observing that looking at the charitable activities itself the delay should have been condoned.
The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Sandeep Taneja while condoning the delay, held that a public charitable trust, which otherwise satisfied the condition for availing exemption should not be denied the same merely due to the "bar of limitation" especially when the statute conferred such "wide discretionary powers" to condone delay.
"The fact that there was any mala fide intention in filing Form 10B belatedly is not alleged in impugned order. The fact that petitioner is a charitable trust is also not denied. Looking at the charitable activities itself, in our view, delay condonation application should have been allowed," the court said.
Title: Aditya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
The Rajasthan High Court granted relied to a student whose scholarship application under state government's Swami Vivekananda Scholarship for Academic Excellence Scheme to study abroad, was rejected on the ground that he failed to submit his resignation letter from his workplace 1-month prior to commencement of his course.
In doing so the court said that the petitioner cannot be expected to resign from his job prior to his selection to the course. It further emphasized on the role that scholarships play for students, calling it "life changing opportunities".
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that until a candidate received provisional selection letter of his scholarship, s/he could not be expected and compelled to resign and furnish the relieving letter from the company where s/he was working.
Title: Gram Panchayat, Asota v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 279
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea challenging inclusion of village Asota in the Sujangarh Master Plan 2036 on the ground that it was done despite objections by the Gram Panchayat and was detrimental to the panchayat's autonomy.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur held that consultation with the respective Gram Panchayat that was done prior to such inclusion was sufficient and the consent was not a sine-qua-non for taking the policy decision.
The Court held that once an area was declared as “Urban Area” within Section 2(1)(x) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (the “Act”), the State was well within its rights to grant permission for land conversions from agricultural to non-agricultural uses, for development, improvement and expansion of such area.
Title: Shankar Lal Saini v Smt. Nagina Patoliya & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 280
In the background of conflicting orders of Supreme Court, Rajasthan High Court held that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of appeal had to be heard at the time of final hearing of appeal.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed against an order of Appellate Rent Tribunal that rejected petitioner's application requesting decision of the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC, before decision on appeal against the eviction order.
the Court highlighted the conflicting Supreme Court judgments on the issue. In the case of North Eastern Administration Gorakhpur v Bhagwan (2008), the Apex Court had held that application submitted under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC had to be decided first before taking up the appeal on merits.
On the contrary, in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Ors. (2012) it was ruled by the Supreme Court that such application, even if filed during pendency of appeal had to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal. In case it was considered and allowed prior to hearing of the appeal, such order was a product of complete non-application of mind.
Title: Mahaveer Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 281
The Rajasthan High Court held that removing formal Sarpanch(s) who were allowed to hold the post of Administrators till next elections even after expiry of more than 6 months of dissolution of their respective panchayats, without following the procedure established by law for holding fresh Panchayat elections, was a glaring example of violation of a constitutional mandate.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further opined that prolonged postponement of these elections could result in a governance vacuum at the local level, and it was expected of the Government of Rajasthan to look into the matter promptly to ensure that the elections of the Panchayati Raj Institutions were conducted at the earliest.
Title: Naurang v Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
The Rajasthan High Court held that where a decree of prohibitory injunction is rendered nugatory by judgment-debtor's willful and unlawful act of dispossessing the decree holder from the disputed property, the executing court had the power to direct restoration of possession under Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC.
Rejecting the argument that executing court's jurisdiction was confined to enforcing decree which in this matter was only prohibitory injunction and not delivery of possession, Justice Farjand Ali observed,
“The essence of an injunction decree is to preserve possession and to restrain intrusion, “injunct” in itself means you shall not enter or to restrain by injunction. If, in defiance thereof, possession is forcibly taken, then the concept of injunction equally encompasses the authority “to expel” and to restore the rightful party back into possession".
Title: Harbajan Singh v Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
The Rajasthan High Court held that denying salary to an employee for the period when they were detained in custody on criminal charges–not relating to misconduct in discharge of official duties–and were subsequently acquitted, was inequitable.
Justice Anand Sharma in his order said: "The broad and salutary principle is that where an employee is detained in custody on criminal charges not attributable to the employee's misconduct in the discharge of official duties and is subsequently acquitted, the employee cannot be made to suffer an avoidable punitive financial burden. This court finds that inequity results where an employee, who remained out of duty on account of detention (and not by his own volition), is treated more harshly than an employee who remained under suspension while on bail".
Title: Khuman Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 284
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the challenge made to an amendment brought in by the Transport Department by which a new category of “sleeper bus” was added for levying motor vehicle tax, taking it out from the previous category without qualifying it for the exemptions available under other categories.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi held that the “bus” fell in the definitions under Sections 2(7) and 2(29) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and once the type or class of vehicle was categorised further based on seating capacity/berth arrangement as per body types defined under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990, the State was within its right to categorize such vehicle for tax imposition.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the different rate of taxes was kept based on intelligible differential of the class of vehicles and the area of their operation, hence, there was no violation in imposing different tax rates on sleeper buses as compared to other buses.
Title: Dr. Rafique Khan v National Institute of Ayurveda
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 285
While disagreeing with the judgment of a single judge the Rajasthan High Court held that the institutional preferences applied by institutes at the stage of admissions had to be applied to all the students who passed out from that institution, and there could not be any artificial distinction amongst those students based on year of passing.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit however said that despite the disagreement with the single judge's judgment, relief of directing admission of petitioner would not be possible at this stage, since the time frame for admission was over.
Title: The Rajasthan Public Service Commission v Lavanshu Shukla & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 286
Rajasthan High Court rejected the appeal filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (“RPSC”), against a single bench decision wherein the respondents, were allowed to appear in the examination for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer, who had not passed their law degree but were appearing, at the time of filing the application form.
The division bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta rejected the argument by RPSC that since the advertisement prescribed last date of application, all qualifications required for the exam, as prescribed under Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Services Rules, 1978 (“the Rules”) should have been obtained by that date.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Chimna Ram
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 287
The Rajasthan High Court rejected State's plea to withdraw a criminal case against Churu MLA Harlal Singh from BJP, who is accused of using forged Class 10 marksheet along with his nomination papers for contesting the election of Zila Parishad member in 2015.
Terming it a “gruesome crime involving misuse of public office and public money”, the division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that State could not justify how withdrawing the case would lead to broadening ends of public justice, public order and peace.
The Court said, “If we examine the record of the case in light of provisions of Section 321 of Cr.P.C. coupled with the principles propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Ajith & ors. (supra) and the position of law annunciated in the cases of Abdul Kareem and others (supra) as well as Rajendra Kumar (supra), it is well settled that the permission for withdrawal from prosecution cannot be granted mechanically. Withdrawal must be for proper administration of justice and only in the public interest. In the present case, neither the State Government has submitted the report regarding satisfaction of the learned Public Prosecutor nor the grounds/reasons for withdrawing the First Information Report...registered...against the accused - Harlal Singh have been assigned in the minutes of the meeting held on 26.11.2024"
Title: Pragya Singh v Union of India And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 288
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a NEET-UG candidate who although belonged to the OBC-NCL (Other Backward Classes Non-Creamy Layer) category as per the State list, but was however treated to be from General category in the first round of admission.
In doing so the court said that she shall be considered under OBC-NCL category for the purpose of state seats.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit directed the Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, to take steps to issue directions by the Department allowing similarly situated candidates in the counselling against the OBC-NCL Category seats, which are to be filled from the State quota alone.
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 289
The Rajasthan High Court refused to permit medical termination of over 32-week pregnancy of a hearing and verbally impaired minor rape survivor, in light of unfavorable opinion of the medical board which indicated serious danger that termination procedure may pose to both fetus and the girl.
Taking into account the medical report Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his August 8 order said:
"In the instant case, Medical Board of five Doctors was of the opinion that the petitioner is carrying pregnancy of 32 weeks and termination of such pregnancy is not advisable. As per the opinion of the Board, it would not be safe and would be life threatening to the mother due to advance gestational age and considering the age of the minor victim and looking to overall facts and circumstances, the passage of time and delay caused in approaching this Court, which is on the part of the petitioner, has only further aggravated the said aspect. There is no material available on the record of this Court on the basis of which this Court may differ with the opinion expressed by the Medical Board. Directing medical termination of this pregnancy, at such an advanced stage, would not only endanger life of the minor victim and would also affect the life of fetus in the womb".
Title: Mahesh Joshi v Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 290
The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Congress leader and former Minister for Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Mahesh Joshi booked in a PMLA case for allegedly colluding to facilitate grant of illegal tenders under Jal Jeevan Mission and receiving "bribe" of Rs. 2 Crores for the same as well as laundering funds.
Justice Praveer Bhatnagar perused the evidence submitted on records by the investigating officers, and opined that the evidence clearly demonstrated Joshi's involvement in the alleged offence.
"The investigation into the corruption case has revealed significant misconduct involving co-accused Padam Chand and Mahesh Mittal, who are alleged to have secured government tenders through unethical and corrupt practices. It has come to light that a close associate of the petitioner, Sanjay Badaya, was implicated in receiving bribes from contractors, which facilitated the manipulation of official assignments to favour certain individuals or entities. This connection raises substantial concerns regarding the petitioner's integrity and involvement in these corrupt dealings".
Title: Kailash Chand Sharma & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 291
The Rajasthan High Court cancelled the 2021 recruitment undertaken by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) of candidates to the post of Sub-Inspectors, in the background of revelation of systemic irregularities–paper leak, cheating during examination, use of dummy candidates–in the conduct of the entire process.
Justice Sameer Jain said that such recruitment process ought to be canceled and this cancellation is "necessary to uphold the integrity of the State in the conduct of public recruitment examinations". In doing so the court also took suo-moto cognizance of the “systemic malpractices” within RPSC in the State "in light of the grave improprieties and malpractices that have been brought to light, involving members of the RPSC".
Underscoring the shortcomings revealed in the SIT report in the conduct of the recruitment process, the single judge took a suo-moto cognizance of the malpractices within the RPSC for institution of a PIL; it directed the Registrar to place the order before the Chief Justice for appropriate proceedings.
Title: Darogi & Ors. v Chetram & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 292
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a Trial Court order wherein despite framing issues in the matter, no categorical issue-wise findings were recorded, and the judgment was given by recording a consolidated finding.
While underscoring the significance of the steps of framing of issues and terming the matter as “quite shocking and surprising”, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the judgment did not stand the judicial scrutiny as it was in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Order XX Rule 5 and Order XIV Rule 2, CPC.
Order XX, Rule 5, CPC and Order XIV, Rule 2, CPC, provides that the Court is to pronounce its decision on each issue.
Title: M/s Subhash Chand Mukesh Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 Live Law (Raj) 293
The Rajasthan High Court held that identification and protection of disputed water bodies required technical expert evaluation underscoring that mere revenue record entries were insufficient wherein ground realities are to be verified by the competent expert authority.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a matter wherein petitioner's right of way to his allotted mining area was rejected by the State on the ground that the land in question was a pasture as well as a water body.
Observing that these were disputed facts which the court cannot determine under Article 226 jurisdiction of the Constitution, the high court directed the State to constitute an Expert Committee to ascertain these questions.
"Identification and protection of disputed water bodies require technical expert evaluation. Mere revenue record entries are not sufficient and the ground conditions/realities must be verified by the competent Expert Authority," the court said.
Title: Bank of Baroda v U.N Automobiles Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 294
The Rajasthan High Court held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”) had no jurisdiction to rewrite/modify the terms and conditions of the One-time Settlement (“OTS”)/Settlement, in relation to an application filed after disposal of the matter based on a Consent Recovery Certificate.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition against the order of the DRT wherein an application filed by the respondent seeking more time to repay the amount was allowed, after the matter under SARFAESI Act was already disposed of by the DRT by passing a Consent Recovery Certificate based on OTS reached between the Parties.
While ruling that a post-disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, the Court held that DRT became functus officio after passing the Consent Recovery and the Amended Consent Recovery, and nothing remained to be decided by it on the same subject matter. Hence, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's application contrary to the OTS.
Title: Kanchan Patil (Mirasi) Samaj v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 295
The Rajasthan High Court has said that "dignity of an individual" after death is hampered due to demarcation of cremation places based on "caste" or other grounds, remarking that it was high time that the State formulated a uniform policy equally applicable to all citizens for a public place to perform post-death rituals.
While hearing a petition filed by the Kanchan Patil (Mirasi) Samaj on not being allowed to use a public land by State for conducting last rites, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta, held that despite fraternity being one of the foundational principles of the nation, the present case was a stark reminder of how far the social reality was from this constitutional vision.
“…public lands earmarked for cremation or burial cannot be segregated or monopolized by any community. Any such practice of exclusion or reservation of common land for the benefit of a particular caste, creed, or community is antithetical to the constitutional vision of equality, fraternity, and dignity…this Court is of the firm opinion that discrimination, which is proscribed under the Constitution of India, cannot be permitted to exist in any form, and certainly cannot be allowed to extend beyond death.”
Title: Smt. Kamla Khinchi v Smt. Kamla & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 296
The Rajasthan High Court has said that after the death of an individual, the execution of their power of attorney (POA) also comes to an end automatically, and the POA holder cannot transfer the share of the deceased assignor post their death based on the POA.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed against the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue that had upheld the order of the Tehsildar.
Title: Ashok Kumar & Anr. v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
The Rajasthan High Court upheld termination of the petitioner on allegations of submitting forged documents during appointment process, despite the petitioner being acquitted in a criminal case of forgery, fabrication and cheating instituted by the concerned department.
Justice Anand Sharma said that just because the petitioner was acquitted, would not give rise to the presumption that such acquittal confers eligibility on the petitioner to hold the concerned post.
"Even otherwise, merely the fact that the petitioners have been acquitted from the charge of forgery, fabrication and cheating, would not give rise to any presumption that such acquittal has conferred the requisite qualification and eligibility upon the petitioners to hold the post of Junior Accountant in the office of the respondents"
The Court also took into account the fact that petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case was based on benefit of doubt, while the State had put in place sufficient documents on what all enquiry was conducted by them to verify the qualification documents, and the letters from the Magadh University made it clear that the petitioner had forged the certificates.
Title: Kishan Lal Sharma & Ors. v Laxmi India Fineleasecap Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 298
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”) where a Securitisation Application (“SA”) submitted by the petitioner was rejected, after being initially entertained, on the ground that not all the borrowers had signed the SA. The court opined that it was not mandatory for all the applicants to sign the same or the supporting affidavit.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that once the petition was entertained at the threshold in 2020 and an interim order was passed, the same should have been decided on merits after being kept pending for more than 5 years, instead of being rejected on such technical counts.
Title: X v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 299
Rajasthan High Court held that while undertaking an enquiry in relation to claim of juvenility of an accused, the standard need not be like a trial where the juvenility had to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, rather if two views are possible, the Court should lean towards holding in favour of the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah further clarified that if the documentary evidence mentioned in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”) were placed on record, they were to be considered relevant unless those were shown to be fabricated or manipulated.
“…if so called documents are available, then there is no requirement for the Court, the board or the committee to go for medical test for age determination. The question is thus answered accordingly.”
Title: State of Rajasthan v Mohanlal Alias Sukhram
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 300
The Rajasthan High Court deprecated the conduct of the State which had filed a plea in 2025 seeking stay on execution of compensation in a fatal accident case, wherein the concerned department had been served in 2017, but only now objected to the proceedings.
Justice Sameer Jain said that despite being served in 2017 the State "remained silent", and had now filed a plea claiming that the Secretary, Medical and Health Department was "wrongfully impleaded as a party" instead of Department of Medical Education/RUHS or RSRTC.
Imposing the condition for deposit of Rs 1 lakh on the State, the court issued notice on the plea and said that the amount shall be recovered from the concerned Secretary or responsible officer-in-charge (either from salary or pension if retired).
Title: Meetu Pareek & Anr. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 301
The Rajasthan High Court expressed anguish and pain over two women who were kept in 43-day judicial custody despite being charged in bailable offences, after their bail pleas were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate and ADJ in a casual and mechanical manner who failed to exercise discretion in a right way.
Expressing regret, Justice Anil Kumar Upman directed the DGP to seek an "explanation/clarification" from the concerned investigating officer for making arrest of the petitioners in a case of a bailable nature and take further action accordingly, and also directed the Registrar to bring the matter to the notice of the concerned Guardian Judge.
The court had earlier granted bail to the women petitioners and had at that time sought an explanation was sought from the Judicial Magistrate who extended police or judicial remand of the petitioners and dismissed the bail plea as well as from the ADJ who had also dismissed the bail pleas. Perusing the explanation the court said that the same was unsatisfactory.
Title: Dr. Varsha Sharma v Joint Director & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 302
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a candidate who despite completing the 2-year course of DNB Obstetrics and Gynaecology and after obtaining certificate of training completion from the hospital in 2021, was denied Provisional Pass Certificate, Attempt Certificate and final degree of DNB by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences.
While rejecting the argument by the NBE that the training period of the petitioner was not completed owing to her maternity leave, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that once the hospital had issued the certificate of training completion, there was no reason for the NBE to withhold the documents.
Title: Sitaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 303
The Rajasthan High Court held that merely because the allegation of rape was alleged by the prosecutrix for the first time during the statements under Section 164 CrPC, that in itself could not be a reason to discard the same at the stage of framing of charges.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah was hearing a petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge that had framed charges against the petitioner of trespassing, wrongful restraint, causing hurt, outraging woman's modesty as well as rape under IPC.
“The Courts have to ensure that a balance is drawn between the right of accused to get a fair trial and he be not prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence but at the same time it is to ensure that the guilty does not get away from the clutches of law and equal justice is granted to the victims and to the society at large.”
Title: Sunita Devi v Sumit Bishnoi, and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 304
While hearing a petition for enhancement of maintenance, Rajasthan High Court took into account the earning capacity of the respondent-husband, and observed that an able-bodied husband was presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife, and could not take the stand that he was not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family.
“Thus, the capacity of the respondent to earn and his actual earning being Rs.10,000/- (while working as a Conductor) and Rs.10,000/- further from joint agricultural property, cannot be disputed. An able-bodied husband must further be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and he cannot take the stand that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. This fact, coupled with the respondent's own admission that the petitioner was not having any income or any property whatsoever, is a relevant consideration while determining the maintenance to be paid.”
Title: Aayush Narania v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 305
Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed against cancellation of license of meat shops established within 50 meters of places of worship in accordance with Clause 4 of the SOP dated March 22, 2021, issued under Section 269 read with Section 340 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (“the Act”).
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand denied the argument put forth by the petitioner of the temple being a private property of few shopkeepers, and opined that every temple was a public property unless proved otherwise, and since the temple in question was situated in an open area, accessible to all, it was construed as a public temple.
Title: Smt. Pooja v Mahendra Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 306
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a decree passed by a competent court cannot be permitted to remain a "mere paper decree, ornamental in nature", or reduced to the "status of a redundant document devoid of efficacy".
Justice Farjand Ali in his order said:
“A decree is not intended to be a showpiece hanging on the wall of litigation; rather, it must be translated into reality so as to secure to the successful litigant the full measure of relief envisaged by the decree itself. Unless the decree-holder secures the substantive benefit contemplated under the judgment and decree, the very exercise of adjudication stands frustrated.”
Title: Master Daivik Rangwani v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 307
While granting relief to a minor whose application for admission in a private school under the Right to Education Act, 2009 was rejected, the Rajasthan High Court held that a fundamental right under Article 21-A could not be tossed and curtailed merely on account on procedural ground or technicalities.
In the present matter, the application of the child was rejected on the ground that the Aadhaar card submitted for verification was not carrying the number of his residency ward.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that once the petitioner was selected for admission in the school under a lottery draw, his application could not have been rejected merely on this technical ground.
“The respondents could have asked the petitioner to furnish a documentary proof with regard to his residential Ward, instead of rejecting his application. Such action of the respondents was quite unjustified and the same is not tenable in the eyes of law.”
Title: IDP Education Indian Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 308
While hearing a petition against the decision of Department of Revenue by a company providing services to a foreign entity, Rajasthan High Court held that for someone to be called an “intermediary”, there had be existence of 3 parties in the contract, in the absence of which, the services rendered under a bipartite agreement could not be called “intermediary”.
The division bench of Justice Mr. K.R. Shriram and Justice Maneesh Sharma was hearing the petition filed by a subsidiary of IDP Australia, a foreign entity assisting students with their enrolment with foreign universities.
“…services provided by petitioner are qua IDP Australia under specific contract or arrangement with it. Not more than two parties are involved in this arrangement, namely, petitioner and IDP Australia. For someone to be called an “Intermediary”, there needs to be existence of three parties in the contract, in the absence of which, petitioner cannot be called as “Intermediary…Petitioner has no say in the final admission process nor do they have any contractual arrangement with the Foreign Universities or the students and hence, their services are only rendered to IDP Australia under a bi partite arrangement.”
Title: Padam Kumar Jain v Bank of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 309
While hearing arguments on seizure of bank accounts on a letter from the Police, the Rajasthan Government informed the High Court that guidelines have been framed by DGP directed senior officials to instruct Investigating Agencies to remain careful while issuing letters to banks for freezing bank accounts.
The court was hearing a matter on the question 'Whether the bank account of account holder can be seized only at the instance of a letter received from the Police (Investigating Agency) without following the procedure contained under Section 102, Cr.P.C?'. In August, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand had issued a general notice inviting all the members of the bar to address the issue.
The court passed the order while granting relief to a Kachori seller who had sought a direction to Bank of Maharashtra to de-freeze his bank. The State argued that a complaint was lodged on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP), being investigated by the Investigating Agency of the State of Telangana wherein it was alleged that crores of rupees have been siphoned by unknown accused persons from the account of the complainant. It was argued that these fraudulent transactions have been found in the bank account of the petitioner account.
Appointment Based On Quashed Precedent Cannot Survive: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Shaitan Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 310
In a case where a litigant was granted appointment based on a precedent which was later quashed, the Rajasthan High Court said that once a litigant is granted relief based on a judgment which later gets set aside, he cannot seek to distinguish his case from the judgment based on which he was given appointment.
Justice Rekha Borana was hearing a petition filed against cancellation of petitioner's appointment by the State pursuant to setting aside of a decision–Yadvendra Shandilya & Ors. Vs. State (Ayurved Department) & Ors–based on which the petitioner was granted bonus marks in the recruitment process and in turn the appointment.
"...this Court is of the clear opinion that once the petitioner chose to be governed by the ratio laid down in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) and even was granted the relief in terms of the ratio laid down in the said judgment, he cannot be now at this stage plead that his case is distinguishable from that in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra). As is the settled position of law if a litigant claims to be governed by some other judgment or ratio laid down in some other judgment and he is even granted some relief in pursuance to the said relied upon judgment, he cannot subsequently turn back and plead that his case is distinguishable from the said judgment".
Title: Mohammad Salim v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 311
While rejecting petitions challenging government proposal to allot new Fair Price Shops in an area, Rajasthan High Court held that opening new FSPs was a policy decision in the prerogative of the State, and those running FSPs for about 20 years could not claim monopoly over an area.
The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal further opined that some FSPs having less than 500 ration card holders, as compared to other FSPs having more than 500 ration card holders, did not by itself made the proposal of the government discriminatory since the main purpose of FSP was not to provide business but to ensure distribution of essential commodities to marginalized citizens.
“Due to rise in population and other factors, if the State Government thought it fit to open new fair price shops, that too looking to the welfare of the public of the area in question, cannot be questioned as the same is nothing but a policy decision of the State Government.”
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Ali Taqi & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 312
The Rajasthan High Court has held that each age relaxation provided under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy And Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 were to be applied independently since no cumulative age relaxation was envisaged across different categories.
In doing so the court said that the Rules demonstrated a deliberate legislative design in carving out age relaxations category-wise. It said that once the authority, acting under constitutional mandate had consciously provided differentiated relaxations with clear limits, the court cannot exercise interpretative power and permit cumulative benefits in the absence of an express enabling provision.
Division bench of Justice (Dr.) Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Taneja summarized the legal position on cumulative age relaxation:
If the Rule itself provides for cumulative relaxation, the same must be respected.
If the Rule prescribes non-cumulative relaxation, then the Rule will prevail.
If the Rule is silent, the advertisement will govern the recruitment (as in the present case).
If both the Rule and the advertisement are silent, the default position is that relaxation will be noncumulative.
If the State intends to extend cumulative benefit, it must do so by express stipulation in the Rule or the advertisement.
Thus, if the Rule is speaking, the Rule will prevail; if silent, the advertisement will prevail. (“Rules of the game cannot be changed midway after the process of appointment to public post has already begun.”)
Title: M/s Sahil Steels v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 313
The Rajasthan High Court has questioned why the tax department can send attachment orders via email, but not assessment orders, to ward off any communication gap or confusion about the date of communication.
The Court was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Appellate Authority, State Tax, that had rejected an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107(1) of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017.
The division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Sangeeta Sharma held,
“The expression “communication to such person” used under section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 has its own significance. Passing of the order and uploading the same on the common portal, in the extant case cannot be read literally. A purposive interpretation needs to be given to a provision, when it relates to valuable statutory right of an assessee, more particularly, when upper cap of only 30 days for condonation of delay has been provided under sub-section (4) of section 107 of the Act of 2017.”
Title: Sangam Chaudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 314
The Rajasthan High Court held that observations/remarks in files by government officials while dealing with matters were merely internal correspondence between them, carrying no legal sanctity.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed against the order of suspension against the petitioner, presently serving as Pradhan, under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act. The suspension was done pursuant to a charge sheet filed against her pertaining to incident that occurred in 2017, during her tenure of Sarpanch.
“This Court finds no substance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner himself observed in the notesheet that enquiry is not required to be conducted against the petitioner since she had deposited the amount. Such an observation/remark made in the file by the Commissioner constitutes mere internal correspondence between the officials and carries no legal sanctity.”
Title: Sabuddin & Ors. v Giriraj
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 315
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ("RAA") and the Board of Revenue, in which a time barred appeal, filed after 44 years of decree, was allowed without any application for condonation of delay or any reasons justifying such delay.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that law of limitation was founded on public policy which required that there should be an end to litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the ligation was made immortal while the litigating parties i.e. the humans were mortals.
"The courts have always treated the statutes of limitation and prescription as statutes of peace and repose. They envisage that a right not exercised or the remedy not availed for a long time ceases to exist. This is one way of putting an end to a litigation by barring the remedy rather than the right with the passage of time," it said.
Title: LBS Convent School v CBSE and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 316
The Rajasthan High Court came down heavily upon the schools permitting dummy candidates by manipulating attendance registers without actual presence of these students for regular studies in Class IX to XII, so that they can attend coaching centres for NEET and JEE preparations.
Observing that menace of dummy schools is a blight on the education system Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the State and all education Boards to constitute Special Investigating Teams (SITs) for surprise inspections and said:
"The State of Rajasthan and all the Boards are directed to constitute Special Investigating Teams (SITs) to carry out sudden and random inspections of all the schools and the coaching centres and in case, the students are found absent in such schools and simultaneously, they found present in the coaching centres, during the school hours, then appropriate strict action be taken against all the stakeholders, including the schools and the coaching centres in accordance with law".
The Court also observed that it was lack of awareness among parents that was leading to the unfair and dangerous trend. It was opined that it was the right and high time that parents gave freedom to their children to choose their career path, rather than imposing their own expectations on them.
Title: Pushkar Naraian Sharma v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 317
The Rajasthan High Court set aside Central Administrative Tribunal's order (CAT) that rejected a man's plea to postpone transfer to Karnataka till March 2026, considering his daughter's Class 12th Board Examination allowing him to continue at his current place of posting till his daughter's examinations were over.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit stated that while the State and Central Government were promoting the campaign of “Beti Bachao aur Beti Padhao”, their authorities were completely immune to the requirements of girls.
Title: Rajmal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 318
The Rajasthan High Court allowed premature release of a man convicted for his mother's murder opining that adverse reports submitted by the Police Department and Social Welfare Department were merely based on presumption that since he had murdered his mother his release would threaten his other family members.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi highlighted that no adverse report was furnished by the jail authorities. The petitioner was also granted jail remission by which it could be presumed that his conduct was “good”.
The Court also took into account that the State had allowed his release on permanent parole which he could not avail due to failure to furnish sureties and personal bond.
"No adverse report has been furnished by the jail authorities and he has been granted the jail remission of 2 years and 6 months, therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is presumed to be 'good'. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no foundation for the adverse reports submitted by the Police Department and Social Welfare Department. We find that rejection of the petitioner's case is merely on the basis of presumption that since he had murdered his mother, therefore, his release will cause disturbance in the society and there will be a threat to the other family members, therefore, the same cannot be sustained"
Title: Akash v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 319
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a 19-year-old, charged with the offence of circulating sexually explicit material against the respondent-complainant and intimidating her on social media, by imposing a unique condition that the accused shall not use social media platforms for a period of 3 years in any form either in his name or any fictitious name.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain highlighted that in light of other circumstances, and considering the future of the petitioner, who was a 2nd year college student, the bail could be granted subject to certain stringent conditions to ensure that the safety and marital life of the victim were not jeopardized due to “notorious” and “whimsical” acts of the accused.
Title: Shwetabh Singhal v M/s Jk and Sons & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 320
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required to be submitted by the person who possessed the original device in which the evidence was recorded, and not the one in whose device the evidence was merely transferred from the original device.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition against the order of the Rent Tribunal that allowed the respondent's application to produce an electronic device contained in a Pen Drive and a Compact Disc.
Title: Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills v. Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 321
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed Point No. 2 of the Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022, restricting ITC claims on the inverted duty structure prior to 18.07.2022.
The bench, consisting of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Sangeeta Sharma, stated that if the impugned clarification is tested on the anvil of reasonableness, it falls foul to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the right to claim refund of Input Tax Credit of the input tax on inverted duty structure has been denied with effect from 18.07.2022 only.
No assessee can be expected to file claim of refund of the tax for the period paid upto 18.07.2022 on 18.07.2022 itself, more particularly when he can apply for refund of tax within the permissible time limit of two years. Hence, curtailment of an assessee's right to claim refund upto 18.07.2022- the date of enforceability of the notification is illegal and contrary to section 54 of the Act of 2017, added the bench.
Title: Divya Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 322
The Rajasthan High Court has held that role of a Pharmacist and a Covid Health Assistant who was engaged temporarily to perform auxiliary duties like distribution of medicines, are distinct and could not be treated as interchangeable.
“A Pharmacist is a qualified Diploma Holder registered under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 entrusted with professional responsibilities of maintaining drug inventory, dispensing medicines with due caution, providing patient counselling and assisting in clinical management. A COVID Health Assistant, on the other hand, was engaged temporarily during the pandemic crisis to perform auxiliary duties including distribution of medicines and support services. The scope, training and statutory responsibilities of a Pharmacist and CHA are distinct and cannot be treated as interchangeable.”
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma further held that when such a disputed question of fact was settled by the competent authority at the time of issuing relevant certificate to the Covid Health Assistance, it could not be re-examined in the writ jurisdiction of the Court, unless the decision was shown to be perverse or mala fide.
Title: Narendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 323
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the policy rationale of reservation in appointment to ex-servicemen is to operate as a one-time benefit to facilitate re-employment, and not as a perpetual device for career progression.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain rejected the petition filed by an ex-servicemen, who was re-appointed as a Village Development Officer under the reserved category of Ex-Servicemen, seeking appointment as a Junior Accountant under the same category, claiming benefit of last proviso to Rule 2-A of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988.
The Court further held that to accept petitioner's reliance of the proviso to Rule 2-A would lead to an anomalous situation wherein an employee who had secured regular appointment under one department continued to consume reserved opportunities, and would frustrate the object of reservation to extend benefit to unemployed ex-servicemen.
Title: Smt. Mishri Devi v Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department Pension Bhawan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 324
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief in a petition seeking family pension and other post-retirement benefits, filed after 24 years of the death of the petitioner's husband, opining that the question of limitation or delay could not be raised by the State to deny legitimate benefits to a government servant or his/her dependents.
Further, the bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that in case the procedure adopted to appoint the concerned government servant was similar to that of a substantive employee, benefits could not be denied to him/her or family, on the ground that the appointment letter mentioned “purely on temporary basis”.
Title: Abhishek Shah v Rajasthan Staff Selection Board & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 Live Law (Raj) 325
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the degree of BE/B.Tech and Computer Concept Certificate (CCC) shall be considered equivalent and sufficient to determine candidate's eligibility in recruitments requiring the certificate of Rajasthan State Certificate in Information Technology (“RS-CIT”).
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma was hearing a bunch of petitions in which the question involved was, whether holding a degree of B.Tech be considered sufficient for the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsildar Revenue Account that required possession of RS-CIT Certificate.
Title: Smt. Imarti Devi & Ors. v Nattha Ram & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 326
The Rajasthan High Court recently enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from around Rs. 7.80 Lakhs to around Rs. 60.62 lakhs, by recomputing the deceased's income in light of monthly EMIs being paid by him, as well as his holding of the agricultural land capable of yielding regular income.
The bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that the ability of an individual to repay heavy loan installments on a regular basis presupposed the existence of a substantially higher income than the discharged liability.
“…it would be wholly unrealistic to assume that a person paying EMI exceeding Rs.35,000/- could have been subsisting on a meagre income of Rs.4,914/- per month. The financial outgo evidenced by the bank transactions constitutes strong circumstantial proof of the deceased's earning capacity.”
Title: Girdhar Gopal v Sanwarmal Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 327
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a tenant whose affidavit of evidence filed with delay of over 1 month in an eviction case was not taken on record by the Rent Tribunal citing mandatory nature of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act.
The court while setting aside the tribunal's order however imposed a unique condition on the petitioner of not only planting 11 shady plants in his vicinity in a public area but also looking after those till final disposal of the application before Rent Tribunal, and further submitting photos of these at every quarter end.
Title: Ramswaroop Bhati v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 328
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition filed by the Chairman, Municipal Board, Jaitaran, against his suspension owing to an allegation of illegality in issuing pattas, and opined that the suspension of a public representative on mere allegations of irregularities would be detrimental to the public at large.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that a public representative was expected to work with the aid and advice of government officials. If an act was done by the elected representatives when the files were placed before him/her after examination of documents by government officials, it was normally expected of him/her to accept the same unless something contrary was brought on record.
Title: Mala Ram & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 329
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of petitions challenging creation of new Revenue Villages without convening a Gram Sabha meeting, observing that the creation of a village or alternation of revenue village's boundary depends on the specific needs of the village and is thus essentially an administrative act.
It was alleged by the petitioner that the proposal for creating new Revenue Villages was forwarded without convening a Gram Sabha meeting as mandated under the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules.
Further, it was submitted that certain proposed villages were named after local residents, which was also in violation of the circulars.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur opined that these circulars had no statutory force, unless it was established beyond doubt that the revenue villages were named after a particular person, deity or caste to appease a particular religion/political group/politically influential person, in an arbitrary and malafide manner, no challenge could be sustained.
Title: Bank of India v Paras Talkies & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 330
The Rajasthan High Court held that the DRAT had discretion under Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, to reduce the interest rate awarded by the DRT in favour of the secured creditor.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a challenge against the order of the DRAT by which the order passed by DRT was modified to the extent of reducing the interest rate from 15% per annum to 12% per annum simple.
Title: Vyas Dental College and Hospital v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed an order of the single bench which had imposed a fine of Rs. 7.50 Lakhs per student on Vyas Dental College for providing irregular admissions to dental students in the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20.
The division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Bipin Gupta was hearing the appeal filed by Vyas Dental College claiming that the such substantial, onerous and unwarranted fine was imposed without any prayer or prior notice to the appellant, and that too in addition to a separate penalty of Rs. 1 crore by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS).
Title: Lrs of Purakh Singh & Anr. v Narendra Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 331
The bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati at the Rajasthan High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in relation to death of a homemaker, taking into account the “significant and invaluable contribution of homemakers”.
After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that, “The Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of judgments has consistently recognized the significant and invaluable contribution of homemakers and has time and again, held that services of homemakers must be given pecuniary value while awarding compensation in motor accident and similar claims”.
Title: Surendra Kumar Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 332
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed plea by candidates seeking appointment as Nurse Grade II who claimed such entitlement to the post based on their work experience as a Vaccinator, clarifying that the two posts are different having different job responsibilities and nature of work.
The court said that although, there was provision for granting bonus marks for having work experience in any project/scheme of State Government, yet such criteria for granting bonus marks is not unlimited and is confined to work "which is of 'similar nature' to the work required to be conducted for the advertised post".
Title: Annpurna Medical Training (College of Nursing) v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 333
Taking serious note of the practice of “forum shopping” and terming it highly disreputable, the Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh each, on a number of petitioners for the same.
Justice Sameer Jain was hearing a bunch of petitions with an identical issue of forum shopping, in which, even though the territorial jurisdiction lay before the Jaipur Bench of the Court, these were filed before the principal seat at Jodhpur.
The Court further highlighted that to its “shock and surprise”, even the Registry did not mark this as a defect or raise any objections regarding their maintainability.
“…the jurisdictional guidelines qua the Rajasthan High Court are byepassed and misused. There is rampant Bench hunting, forum shopping which is ignored by the Registry. Nevertheless, the concerned Court also on account of heavy workload, is not able to consider the said aspect at the initial stance…”
Title: X v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 334
Rajasthan High Court held that refusal of service of notice by any person other than the noticee themselves or their agent cannot be considered refusal in the eye of law.
The court held thus while quashing an ex-parte divorce decree granted by family court in the wife's favour after noting that the court notice was refused by the husband's mother in his absence.
The high court said:
"A refusal for the purpose of service of notice should be taken to be a sufficient service, if such refusal is by the addressee or by the noticee himself/herself. A denial by any other person other than the noticee or his agent, including the mother to receive or accept the notice on someone else's behalf cannot be said to be a refusal in the eye of law".
Title: Ravindra Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 335
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that transfer order under Section 336(2) State Municipalities Act 2009, cannot be construed as a transfer by way of deputation since the provision does not provide for officer's consent which is essential for deputation.
The court said that once an order under Section 336(2) is issued, the officer/employee has no option but to join the duty at the transferred place.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of the respondent that since Section 366 did not prohibit repatriation of an employee, it could not done. It was held that since the power to transfer an officer or service under Section 336 was conferred exclusively on the State, power to retransfer/recall/repatriate was also vested in the State Government.
Title: Jyoti Bhati v Amazon India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 336
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur , has directed Amazon India, Apple India, and the seller to jointly refund ₹61,999 to a consumer for a defective iPhone, holding them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The Commission, comprising Dr. Yatish Kumar Sharma, President, and Dr. Anuradha Vyas, Member, imposed a joint liability of Rs. 10,000 on Amazon, Apple, and the third-party private seller towards the complainant, for causing her mental harassment, when she was delivered a power bank worth Rs. 1,000 instead of her pre-paid order of an iPhone 12 amounting to Rs. 61,900
Title: Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 337
The Rajasthan High Court came down heavily on the Revenue Department for being “rigid and adamant” to transfer the case of the petitioner from Udaipur to Delhi under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the coordinate bench's earlier decision that quashed the same order.
The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Ravi Chirania stated that when the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were pending for more than 6 years, the department must be more concerned with examining and deciding the issue as per law, instead of making the assessee a “shuttlecock”.
While making the above-mentioned observations, it opined that, “The proceedings initiated by respondent against petitioner are pending for more than 6 years because of respondent's unreasonable and unjustified act of ordering transfer the case of the petitioner from Udaipur to Delhi”.
Title: Durga Lal Verma v District Collector, Tonk
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 338
Rajasthan High Court set aside a charge sheet issued against a retired employee for same charges in relation to which disciplinary proceedings were already dropped against him in 1991, followed by his acquittal from the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the Act”) in 2000.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that in absence of any specific power to review, revise or re-initiate the matter in second enquiry, once a disciplinary enquiry was closed or dropped against the delinquent employee, the matter came to an end, and the disciplinary authority could not restore the same.
Title: Megha Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 339
Rajasthan High Court expressed its pain with the State government for not paying salary to a government employee in coma for over two years after suffering brain hemorrhage, calling it inhumane, unreasonable and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Considering the “inhumane and arbitrary approach” and fairly settled law around the situation, Justice Ravi Chirania, instead of awaiting reply from the State, directed it to examine the employee's case regarding his dues and medical bills within 7 days. The court said:
“The financial condition of a government servant who has not been paid salary from the last more than one year and is in coma from the last two years can easily be imagined by the respondents…A sudden medical problem has declared the employee as a deadwood for the respondent- State Department and they are least bothered about his condition...This Court is in pain noticing the inhumane and arbitrary approach and act of the respondents. Though in the usual circumstances, as already mentioned above, the respondents would have been permitted to file the usual reply however, they would have taken further time in resolving the grievance of the petitioner which, as already mentioned above, hardly require any adjudication by this Court in terms of the law as laid down”.
Title: Arjun Lal & Ors. v Rameshwar Prasad & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 340
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the order of the Board of Revenue that rejected the application by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, on the ground that the original application was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, but was submitted subsequently.
While restoring the order of the Assistant Collector that had allowed the application, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the primary function of the Court was to adjudicate the dispute, and that rules of limitation were not meant to destroy people's rights.
"Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redressed of the legal injury so suffered," the court said.
Title: Nathdwara Temple Board & Anr. v Dhirendra Manaharbhai Tharanariwala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 341
Rajashtan High Court modified its order dated October 3, 2017, to the extent of shifting the responsibility of developing a Trauma Centre and National Level Institution to promote Indian Art, at Nathdwara, Rajasthan, from the Nathdwara Temple Board to State Government/functionaries, clarifying that the Board shall provide all assistance for the purpose.
The matter related to a writ petition filed by certain residents of Surat and Ahmedabad, in 2004, seeking adequate facilities for pilgrims in Nathdwara Temple Town and Nathdwara Temple.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, these two establishments are required to be developed by the State Government/State functionaries and since the Nathdwara Temple Board is having a major role to play, therefore, it will also be the bounden duty of the Nathdwara Temple Board to provide all the assistance including financial assistance for establishment of those two centres.”
Title: Laxman Das v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 342
Rajasthan High Court converted a father's murder conviction for fatally hitting his son's neck with a sharp edged tool, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reduced sentence from life imprisonment to 7 years.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi took into consideration the testimonies of prosecution witnesses including appellant's wife and daughter, claiming him to be a short-tempered person, lacking mental balance. It was claimed that the appellant often lost control and used to beat his children for their mistakes.
The Court observed that ordinarily, no parent would injure their children fatally, irrespective of how much frustrated they were, such that the child losses his/her life.
Title: Kapuraram v Bhuri Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 343
The Rajasthan High Court held that once a civil court has already passed a decree restraining a party from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit property, the same could not be interfered with by initiating proceedings under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (“the Act”).
“The delay in approaching the revision court without any justifiable reasons and after expiry of a reasonable time cannot be held to be bonafide or unintentional. Further, the delay also cannot be said to be bonafide for the reason that the civil suit was filed by the respondents i.e. legal representatives of Vachnaram seeking permanent injunction in the year 2010 which is prior to the filing of the revision petition.”
Title: State of Rajasthan v Arjun Singh and
Arjun Singh v State Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 344
While answering the death reference in negative, Rajasthan High Court acquitted a man convicted for murder of two siblings and raping the sister.
In doing so, a division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi expressed its "astonishment" over trial court's decision of awarding death penalty to the appellant in a case wherein they struggled to find any trace of evidence supporting prosecution's case.
"It is a bit astonishing to note that a case wherein this Court is facing difficulty to find any trace of evidence supporting the case of the prosecution, the accused/appellant has been convicted with death sentence by the learned Trial Court. Not a whisper is found in the impugned judgment so as to make the present case fall within the category of “rarest of the rare” case"
It was also highlighted that no blood stains were found on the alleged weapon based on which it could be said that the same was used for committing the crime. In this light, it was opined that when the weapon was devoid of any blood stain, mere recovery of shirt having victim's blood stains could not be the sole basis to prove charge of murder.
Title: Shekharchand Sachet and Anr. v. S.M.F.G. India Home Finance Company Limited and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 345
The Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench has held that a Section 11 petition under the A&C Act without issuing the notice invoking arbitration (“NIA”) u/s 21 of the A&C Act would be maintainable if the Respondents were aware of the dispute being referred to arbitration. The bench noted that the Respondents were well-versed in the dispute raised by the Petitioner. They could not have been surprised after the Petitioner's plaint was returned by the trial court under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC after the Respondent filed a section 8 application r/w section 5 of the A&C Act.
Title: Narendra Mahal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 346
Granting relief to a successful NEET candidate whose candidature was considered ineligible as he was late by 1 day in depositing fee, Rajasthan High Court slammed the forfeiture of Rs 5 Lakh security deposit by the Counselling Board terming it "unjust enrichment".
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain opined that merely due to procedural irregularities or delays which could be condoned, the dreams of the petitioner need not be halted. It thus allowed the petitioner to participate in the third round of counselling.
Title: Harishankar Acharya & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 347
In a landmark ruling, Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the home guard personnel of the State of Rajasthan, in their long drawn battle against the rotational system of engagement that restricted their maximum deployment period to 6-8 months, and no employment benefits.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that being a welfare State, it should work towards the betterment of the society, and not to make the poor poorer and rich richer.
It said:
"The ostensible claim that they serve as “volunteers” is, in truth, a camouflage. The State not only deploys them on specific dates and occasions but also directs, instructs, and supervises their functions. Their role is not left to their volition; rather, they perform duties determined by the State. In return, they are paid remuneration for the work performed. Such an arrangement unmistakably bears the incidents and character of an employer–employee relationship. The plight of these so-called “volunteers” is both helpless and hapless...this Court is of the view that all Home Guards be deployed on a continuous basis, and it directs the State to take all necessary steps to implement this system forthwith, so as to safeguard both the interests of the Home Guards and the effective functioning of the State machinery."
In this background, the directions were issued to the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary; Finance Department; and Information Technology and Home Guards Department
Title: Narendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 348
Dismissing challenge to an order rejecting plea under Section 319 CrPC for summoning three men in an assault case, Rajasthan High Court held that when the injured person was themselves silent about the involvement and role of these men, then statements of other witnesses hardly made any difference.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said:
"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the charge-sheet was submitted against only two accused persons who were named in the statement of the injured. When the injured is silent about the involvement and role of the accused-respondents, then under these circumstances, the statements of other witnesses hardly makes any difference".
Title: Smt. Babita v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 349
While dismissing a habeas corpus writ petition, Rajasthan High Court held that the writ jurisdiction in the case of a missing person could not be invoked as a matter of routine to know the status of investigation or being dissatisfied with the manner of such investigation.
The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu opined that the scope of Habeas Corpus had been enlarged with time, but there could not be a straitjacket formula for interference in writ in the nature of habeas corpus.
It was held that since there was alternative remedy available under criminal procedure laws for supervision of investigation or issuance of directions for effective investigation, competent court must deal with such matters.
Rajasthan High Court Imposes Cost On State For Re-Litigating Settled Issue Despite 2013 Order
Title: State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Kamal Singh Chaudhary & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 350
Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the State to be given to the respondents, for repeatedly challenging an issue already settled in 2013, instead of giving effect to the decision of the court.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted the fact that the 2013 order had attained finality, and it cannot be allowed to be challenged in this intra court appeal against the 2023 order. Since the 2013 order was unsuccessfully appealed, and thereafter no SLP was filed, the State accepted that order, and it attained finality.
Despite this, the order was not complied with by the State. The Court said, “the issue is being raked up again to challenge the order which had attained finality.”
Title: Deevan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 351
Rajasthan High Court held that service of summons to a person who was posted as a soldier, sailor or airman in the Armed Forces, upon WhatsApp number could not be treated as sufficient, in light of the mandate under Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal) 2018 (“the Rules”) and Order V Rule 28, CPC.
“The Army, the Air Force and the Navy is collectively known as the Armed Forces which are highly organized and disciplined forces and are specially designed for carrying out battles, protecting the State from the threat of external forces and to conduct other special operations…Special procedures/processes have been made by the Legislature for service of summons upon the members of the Armed Forces…when a case is filed against them in their personal capacity.”
It was observed that the petitioner was prevented of sufficient opportunity to make personal appearance before the court, and the Family court's failure to comply with the mandatory provisions resulted in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Title: Ratiram Yadav v Gopal Sharma and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 352
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a cheque issued towards a time-barred debt gets dishonoured, the liability under Section 138 NI Act can be invoked in view of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contracts Act, as per which even a time-barred debt forms a valid consideration if there was a written promise signed by the debtor.
The bench of Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur held that a cheque constituted such a promise as contemplated under Section 25 of the Indian Contracts Act.
“The contention that the debt was time-barred by 2012 does not ipso facto exonerate the accused, the very issuance of cheques constitute a promise within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reviving the enforceability of the debt. Accordingly, the requirement of “legally enforceable debt” under Section 138 of the “N.I. Act” is satisfied.”
Title: Global Pharmacy College v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 353
Rajasthan High Court set aside the order passed by the State imposing a ban on granting of NOCs to the private colleges intending to start B.Pharmacy Course as well as for establishment of new colleges seeking to impart the B-Pharmacy Course.
Justice Sunil Beniwal held that the act of the State imposing the ban was without any legislative backing or competence, and hence, unlawful. It was further held that the since the ban was only imposed on private colleges, it was arbitrary and discriminatory.
“True it is that the State Government has authority to take policy decision, however, such decision has to be rational and cannot be taken without having jurisdiction to do so. The State Government can, in no manner, without deriving authority through proper legislation impose a blanket ban on grant of NOC, that too, taking only the private colleges under the umbrella of such ban.”
Title: Atar Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 354
Rajasthan High Court held that the petitions filed by the liquor contractors, challenging non-refund of the security deposit by the Excise Department, even beyond the expiry of their license period, was premature since no order of demand, recovery or forfeiture was yet passed.
At the same time, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain opined that administrative inaction leading to an indefinite retention of lawful dues could not be accepted. Accordingly, the State was directed to decide every representation filed after this order within 30 days.
The Court further directed that in case the order was not passed within the stipulated timeline, the claim for refund shall be deemed to be valid, and the retention of money beyond 30 days of filing the representation shall attract an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till payment.
Title: Kritesh Oswal & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 355
Rajasthan High Court has restrained the Food Safety Standards Authority of India and Environment Ministry's Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee from granting permission for sale, manufacture, distribution or import of Genetically Modified (GM) Food till regulations are framed governing such items.
The court also directed the FSSAI and the Centre to frame the requisite regulations governing GM foods/edible items under Section 22 of the Food Safety Act within 6 months. Section 22 of the Act provides that except for in accordance with the regulations made under the Act, no one shall manufacture, distribute, sell or import any GM food.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit issued directions.
Title: Dr. Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 356
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit held that classification between Allopathic and Ayurvedic doctors performing the same functions is unreasonable and that Ayurvedic doctors are entitled to the same enhanced retirement age of 62 years along with all consequential benefits.
Bank Can Assign Debt Even If NPA Classification Is Later Declared Invalid: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Sh. Harendra Singh Rathore Versus State Bank Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 357
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed against SBI's assignment of debt in favor of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (AARC) holding that even if NPA classification is later declared invalid, it does not affect the validity of assignment of debt.
Justice Rekha Borana held that “the assignment cannot be invalidated merely because the NPA classification was later declared invalid. The writ petition being totally misconceived does not deserve any interference and is hence dismissed.”
On NPA classification, the court held that “the act of assigning a loan is a legal transaction distinct from the internal classification of that loan as an NPA. Even if the NPA classification is later declared invalid, the bank's right to transfer or assign the debt remains unaffected.” In light of the above discussion, the court held that therefore invalidity of NPA classification did not affect the validity of the assignment of debt.
Title: Kingsroad Handelsges Versus Raj Grow Impex LLP.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 358
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed objections against the enforcement of a foreign award raised by Raj Grow Impex LLP stating that the scope of interference is extremely narrow at the enforcement stage and that an award holder having won before both the tribunal and appellate tribunals should not be left to feel that he has won the battle but lost the war.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that “since this Court in the scope of Section 48 is not entitled to examine merits of the foreign award, therefore, arguments on merits advanced by the respondent need not be entered into in greater details. In proceedings seeking enforcement of the foreign award and making the foreign award a decree of this Court, this Court cannot sit in appeal on the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Title: Ved Prakash Yadav v/s Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 359
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a public servant's plea booked in a corruption case who had challenged an order taking cognizance of offences under PMLA on the ground that no prior sanction was taken as per Section 218 BNSS.
In doing so the court observed that there were over Rs 2 crore cash and a gold bar worth over Rs 60 Lakh seized from the petitioner's residence and the same cannot relate to any act allegedly committed in discharge of the public servant's duty; thus prior sanction for prosecution is not needed.
Title: Victim v/s State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 360
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a trial court order which had rejected a minor rape victim's plea for compensation under State Victim Compensation Scheme on the technical ground that she did not furnish details of her source of income for making payment of her school fee, etc.
In doing so the court observed that such cases are to be dealt with sensitivity by courts and the crime being a dehumanizing one, compensation should be awarded as a solace to the victim.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said:
"The crime of rape can be regarded as the highest form of torture inflicted upon womanhood. It not only inflicts physical torture upon the body of the woman, but also adversely affects her mental, psychological and emotional well-being. Therefore, rape is treated as the most heinous crime against the very basic human right conferred upon the woman i.e., 'the right of life and dignity'. It is not merely a sexual offence, but an act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating the woman. Such cases are required to be handled by the Courts with utmost sensitivity and high responsibility. Crime of rape committed with the minor victim is a dehumanizing one and an affront to human dignity. Hence, compensation should be awarded as a form of solace to the victim".
Title: A v/s State of Rajasthan & Anr and connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 361
The Rajasthan High Court set aside an appellate court's order remitting a POCSO case lodged against two juveniles to the Children's Court for conducting a trial against them as "adult accused". In doing so the court said that offence alleged against the petitioners do not fall in the category of "heinous offences" under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 as none of the offences alleged carried a minimum sentence 7 years or more.
The court said that the JJ Act has not classified or defined the offences for which punishment under any statute is imprisonment for more than 07 years, but no mandatory minimum punishment of imprisonment for 07 years or more has been prescribed.
It further said that “heinous offences" defined under Section 2(33) cannot be interpreted in a way, which may be less beneficial for the child, who is alleged to have committed an offence falling between the category of “serious offences‟ and “heinous offences‟. This was because the JJ Act treats all children below 18 years equally except in the age group of 16-18 years, who has committed “heinous offences".
Title: Tyger Home Finance Private Limited v State Of Rajasthan and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 362
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that a Magistrate cannot direct a secured creditor to deposit expenses for police assistance while taking possession of a secured asset under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
A single-judge bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar made the ruling while setting aside a condition imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Alwar in a dispute between a finance company and its borrowers,
“There is no provision under Section 14 of the 'Act of 2002' which may authorize the learned Magistrate to direct the secured creditor to deposit any expenses of police assistance in taking possession of the secured asset.”, it said.
Voluntary GST Cancellation Not Grounds To Freeze Company's Bank Account: Rajasthan High Court
Title: M/s Bhilwara Trading Company v Bank Of Baroda
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 363
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Bank of Baroda to de-freeze the account of the petitioner-company, allowing it to use it freely till finally deciding the company's representation, observing that the bank could not freeze the account merely because the company's GST registration was voluntarily cancelled.
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati was hearing a petition filed by a company trading in goods which were exempted from the Goods and Services Tax, whose application for voluntary cancellation of GST registration was allowed by the concerned department. However, post such cancellation, the petitioner was informed by the respondent bank that accounts with cancelled GST registrations were considered in the high-risk category, and hence, the petitioner's account was frozen by the bank. Against this, the present petition was filed.
Title: Bhagwan Singh v Suptd Engineer Pawas & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 364
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to deduct a part of a widow's salary who was appointed on compassionate grounds after her husband's death, and deposit it in the account of her dependent father-in-law, upon finding the fact of her leaving the matrimonial house and deserting the in-laws soon after the husband's death.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that compassionate appointment was not conferred upon an individual in individual capacity, but as a representative of the entire family who was dependent on the deceased. Hence, it carried a corresponding moral and legal obligation to protect the interests of other surviving dependents.
“In this benevolent framework, the expression “family” cannot be interpreted in a narrow or compartmentalized manner so as to mean the widow alone. It necessarily includes all those who were dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of his death namely, the parents, spouse, and children; for they together constitute a composite family unit bound by mutual dependency and shared vulnerability.”
Title: Manraj v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 365
The Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to a 19-year-old accused of committing cyber crimes after imposing unique conditions on him, including restraining him from using social media apps like Telegram and WhatsApp.
Justice Sameer Jain took note of the fact that the applicant is a young man, "who is at fag end of his teen age" and that he had been in custody since 15.07.2025. The court noted that the chargesheet had been filed.
Thus without commenting upon the merits/demerits of the case, this Court allowed the bail plea subject to certain conditions that restrained him from using any social media applications like Telegram and WhatsApp during trial
Title: M/s Tata Bricks Company v Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 366
Rajasthan High Court set aside a bunch of orders by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (“RSPCB”) that imposed environmental compensation on the brick-kiln operators, opining that the RSPCB had no statutory authority to impose such compensation in the absence of duly framed rules and regulations.
The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal, while heavily relying upon the Supreme Court ruling in the case of D.P.C.C. v Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. held that RSPCB could not recover environmental compensation without legislative authority or a notified method of its calculation.
Title: Ishtiyaq Ahmed v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 367
Rajasthan High Court has held that examination of only the medical jurist is not sufficient to determine the nature of injury without examination of the Radiologist based on whose X-ray reports the medical jurist had given evidence.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah held that in such a situation, the concerned radiologist was required to be examined and the X-rays were also be required to be exhibited for determining the actual nature of injury.
“…examination of Radiologist is essential when the offence alleged is under Sections 326 and 307 IPC as it is only post his examination that the details of the X-ray and the nature of injury, based upon the X-ray can be brought on record.”
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Naresh Chandra Patel
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 368
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a single bench order directing the State to consider the candidature of the respondent based on his graduation mark-sheet which was never disclosed in his original application form, but only in a writ petition filed belatedly.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta opined that no candidate could be allowed to seek consideration of his candidature based on documents submitted after a lapse of long period from the closure of recruitment process merely on the ground that seats were still lying vacant.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that there was not a single reference of existence of any alternate eligibility qualification in the respondent's application, and after two and half years, a candidate could not be permitted to claim that what he filled in this application form was an inadvertent mistake.
Title: Heera Lal Saini & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 369
The Rajasthan High Court imposed a total cost of Rs. 50,000 on the two shop tenants (petitioners), who were earlier allotted shops on rent by the State, for attempting to mislead the court by concealing the material facts and trying to abuse the judicial process.
The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit held that the once the petitioner had voluntarily participated in an earlier round of auction for the shops and frustrated the same by failing to deposit the bid amount, they could not challenge or seek a stay on the subsequent auction.
The Court observed that the conduct on part of the petitioners had caused huge financial loss to the Gram Panchayat, and was an attempt to abuse the legal process.
“This Court strongly deprecates and condemns such dubious and unscrupulous practices adopted by the petitioners. By engaging in conduct that amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law, the petitioners have not only caused financial loss to the Gram Panchayat but have also sought to misuse the judicial machinery.”
Title: Rameshwar Choudhary & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 370
Rajasthan High Court dismissed the special appeal challenging the 45% minimum qualifying marks for Physically Handicapped Category in the recruitment process of Veterinary Officer conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta upheld a single judge decision which found that the 45% qualifying criteria was incorporated after the decision of full Commission, and was also published on the official website of RPSC.
The Court held that irrespective of the fact that the condition was not mentioned in the advertisement for the post, since the advertisement had expressly directed the candidates to refer to the website for further instructions, it could not be said to be newly introduced.
Title: Manoj Kumar Meena v Smt. Preeti Meena and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 371
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the accused-petitioner by directing transfer of his matrimonial and maintenance cases from Sawai Madhopur to Jaipur after finding out that owing to his advocate wife's influence on the Bar Association, no lawyer was ready to represent him before the courts situated at Sawai Madhopur.
While underscoring the significance of the fundamental right to get legal assistance, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the inability of a litigant to secure effective legal assistance due to reluctance caused by Bar Association under the influence or creation of hostile environment by the respondent compromised the fundamental principle of fair trial.
“Courts are temple of justice and they should remain open for all litigants. Every litigant is constitutionally and legally entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. The litigants cannot be arbitrarily denied their right to seek justice and present their case before the Court of law.”
Title: Karan Mehra v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 372
Rajasthan High Court rejected bail of a 27-year old NDPS accused, who was arrested with 18.5 Kg of hydroponic weed, allegedly valued at Rs. 18 Crore, despite the recovered quantity being less than the commercial threshold, owing to the value of the drug, its high potency, and the sophisticated method of import.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that the peculiarities in the case indicated that the accused was not a simple user or a small time peddler but was linked to a larger, well-funded drug trafficking syndicate.
The Court highlighted that it was becoming a common tactic of organized drug syndicates to import drugs in quantities below the commercial threshold to evade Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, granting bail in the present situation would encourage this tactic and render the very objective of the NDPS Act to combat large-scale drug trafficking ineffective.
Title: Nathi Devi v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 373
The Rajasthan High Court has issued direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Rajasthan and the Director General of Police to create a special cell for tracing out the absconding accused and proclaimed offenders to face trail, ensuring that the victims of the crime get timely justice.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the police authorities were duty bound to trace the absconding accused across the nation and execute the arrest warrants so that the accused could be produced before the court for facing trial. They could not be allowed to take the plea that the accused was “untraceable”.
“If the contentions of the petitioner are allowed to stand then it would be a mockery of law and justice…Therefore, without participating in the investigation and trial, such type of mischievous criminals would have the last laugh and, would render the Administration of Justice vulnerable to the extent of frailty. Same is not permissible.”
Title: Mohd. Sohail Bishti v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 374
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that extended judicial custody of a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) accused by another 90 days, and denied his right to default bail, opining it to be without jurisdiction, illegal and perverse.
The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal stated that the offences under UAPA were scheduled offences under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, and hence fell within the jurisdiction of Special Courts constituted under Section 22 of the NIA Act.
It was held that the power to extend the 90 days remand lied only with the Special Court or in its absence, the Court of Sessions.
Title: Ritesh Khatri v Shyam Sundar Khatri
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 375
The Rajasthan High Court imposed exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh on a son, litigating against his father for legal rights of a coparcener in a property— which he very well knew was not part of the Hindu United Family or co-parcenery, but was purchased by the father in his own name.
The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal opined that a child resides on his father's property during his childhood by the virtue of love, affection and parental duty of the father.
However, it emphasized that after attaining majority and getting married, if the father allows the son/daughter to possess his house/property, it does not by itself create any legal right in the child's favour to claim that property as his own, unless the property was ancestral or of HUF.
“…defendant's plea for protection of his possession is not backed by his absolute legal right, vested in him, and his possession over the property of his father since childhood is because of love and affection. The moment father is dissatisfied with the behaviour and conduct of his son and no longer wishes that his son or his family should continue to reside in his property, the defendant's possession, being the son, is not liable to be protected”.
Title: Suraj Mal Meena & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 376
The Rajasthan High Court has asked the State to consider granting age relaxation of 4 years, instead of 3 years, as notified in the advertisement, to candidates who appeared in the 2021 Sub-Inspector Recruitments process, and had re-applied for the 2025 process.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain opined that the matter related to legitimate expectation of the youth and such candidates shall not be disqualified merely because they crossed the maximum age limit owing to administrative delays and irregularities.
“…the recruitment process initiated for Sub Inspectors in year 2021 remain in limbo and still it is undecided. Not only selected candidates are in state of uncertainty but the students, who appeared in public examination are also uncertain about outcome of their challenge.”
Title: Anuj Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 377
The Rajasthan High Court held that the decriminalization of adultery by the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v Union of India shall not just apply prospectively but, it will apply retrospectively to all pending and ongoing cases, which is necessary to uphold the constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and privacy.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that when Section 497 IPC (Adultery) was struck down for being unconstitutional, there was no qualification restricting its operation prospectively. Once a provision was declared unconstitutional, it became void ab initio and could not be the basis of any prosecution thereafter or even in respect of any pending matters.
“…declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 497 IPC by the Hon'ble Supreme Court operates retrospectively, nullifying all pending prosecutions based solely on that provision. However, the proceedings already culminated in the cases by concluding the trials prior to the judgment in the case of Joseph Shine (supra) cannot be reopened.”
Title: Shanti Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 378
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the State's order rejecting ex-gratia amount to an employee's illiterate widow, who was unaware of the welfare scheme and thus got delayed in applying for the same, opining that such rejection on technical grounds, despite admitted administrative delay, was a hyper-technical and insensitive approach.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further observed that in cases of death during service, authorities must act with sensitivity and promptness, ensuring no unnecessary hardship to bereaving families on account of procedural rigidity.
Dharmshala On Private Land Doesn't Make Property Charitable: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Prem Prakash Bihani & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 379
The Rajasthan High Court has held that mere construction of a Dharamshala on a private land could not lead to a presumption that the property was allotted for charitable purposes, or had to be perpetually used for such objectives.
The bench of Justice Rekha Borana made the above observations while allowing a petition filed by the legal heirs of a Trust that challenged the order of the Commissioner, Devasthan Department that declared their ancestral property as a public trust property.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kuldeep Chand v Advocate General, H.P. in which it was held that in absence of any formal and written instrument establishing endowment as a public trust, it could not be concluded that there was any intention of dedicating the land for charitable purposes relinquishing right of ownership.
Title: Kailash Sankhla v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 380
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Superintendent, Central Jail, being a separate administrative department, had no authority or competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Medical Officer deputed from the Medical and Health Department.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali made these observations while quashing the transfer orders of the petitioner that also included a direction to the Jail Superintendent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“the Rules”).
Title: the State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Smt. Manju Berwa & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 381
The Rajasthan High Court held that if the very foundation of termination of an employee was pendency of a criminal case against him/her, and the criminal case resulted in acquittal of the employee by the competent criminal court, the basis of such terminated ceased to exist, and the employer shall reinstate the employee.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi upheld the order of the Labour Court and the single judge bench that ruled in favour of an employee who was terminated owing to a pending criminal case, and even after acquittal was denied reinstatement.
Title: Sports Authority of India & Anr. v R.S. Rathore
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 382
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) that ruled in favour of a State employee who was denied the benefit under Modified Assured Career Progression (“MACP”) on account of non-availability of his Annual Confidential Reports (“ACRs”)/ Annual Performance Appraisal Records (APARs).
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Bipin Gupta held that the duty to maintain APARs was of the employer on which the employee had no control. Hence, employer could not be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong by depriving the employee of the benefit to which the s/he was otherwise entitled.
“It was the bounden duty of the employer to maintain the APARs, and if the same are not available, the fault cannot be attributed to the employee and the employer cannot deny the benefit of MACP on the ground of non availability of APARs.”
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Bhai Shankar Lal Jawan Mal, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 383
Rajasthan High Court held that the State could not unilaterally impose an annual lease rent condition after completion of an auction and plot allotment when no such condition was contemplated in the original auction notification.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Taneja further rejected the State's argument of the allotees being bound by promissory estoppel based on their undertaking of signing the lease deed in the prescribed formats. It was opined that such undertaking was not unqualified consent to bear any subsequent financial burden which were not contemplated originally.
Title: F v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 384
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that law of any civilized society is not definite, and it must change according to the demands and circumstances of the society.
“Law and transformation is a unique concept which highlights the changes in social problems and their solutions through legal…Law not only lays down the norms that are acceptable to a given society, but it also lays down the norms regarding when the society should adapt and act in the interest of its own welfare.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a quashing petition filed by a rape accused under IPC and POCSO, in light of his marriage with the now-major victim.
It opined that crime of rape is the highest form of torture inflicted upon womanhood, and such cases should be handled by the Court with utmost sensitivity and high responsibility. However, at the same time, it also highlighted the victim's will and clear intention to lead a happy married life with the accused.
Past Censure Cannot Bar Employee's Consideration For Promotion: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Manish Bhargava v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 385
The Rajasthan High Court has held that irrespective of the penalty being imposed on an employee, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) can adjudge the suitability of an employee for promotion, and the consideration itself could not be denied merely on the ground of imposed penalty.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a petition challenging the petitioner's (Lecturer) denial of promotion for the year 2022-23 by the DPC merely on account of his past penalty of censure in the year 2019, declaring him ineligible for promotion on that ground.
Title: Dr. Avinash Sharma v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 386
After a man booked under the NDPS Act alleged that the police officer was present at the site of recovery beforehand and had planted the drugs purportedly recovered from his possession, the Rajasthan High Court ordered preservation of officer's mobile tower location data under Section 94 BNSS.
In doing so, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed,
"No doubt, while passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of Call Data Record/tower location details under Section 94 of the BNSS would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to ensure a free and fair investigation/trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials."
Title: Nirmal Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 387
The Rajasthan High Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether arrest warrants can be converted to bailable warrants in serious economic offences under the provisions of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Customs, CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax), as well as heinous offences punishable under Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand stated that, “creation of fake/non-existing Firms with an intent to pass on fake ITC on the basis of alleged supply shown in fake invoices and thereby passing on fake ITC to various beneficiaries and thus evading tax in crores of rupees, which affects the economy of the nation, and the same would certainly fall within the purview of grave economic offences.”
Title: Alok Kumar Chaturvedi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 388
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a "retaliatory" cruelty FIR lodged against a man, underscoring that the case was instituted by the wife 20 months after living separately, only to revenge the divorce proceedings instituted by him.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma further took into account that her response to the divorce plea, which was filed before the Court after lodging Section 498A FIR, was silent on the alleged cruelty which was described by her in the FIR.
Moreover, on one hand the wife had contested the divorce petition filed by the husband and on the other, during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, she expressed “no objection”, and as soon as divorce decree was passed, she remarried another person.
The Court held that these facts were sufficient to infer that the 498A proceedings were malicious in nature, and filed due to ulterior motive to “wreck vengeance”.
Title: Rakesh Jain v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 389
The Rajasthan High Court has flagged the instance of advocates or their clerks signing affidavits for applications/petitions/counter affidavits, etc, on behalf of their clients without knowing the contents of such documents, and held that such conduct amounted to fraud and was unacceptable. The court said:
“Justice is often metaphorically termed to be blind, but the officers of Courts must not dare to betray the trust of the Bench deeming the Judges to be sightless…The practice of Advocates or their clerks in filing the affidavit/petition/application/reply without proper representation with their own signatures cannot be appreciated and the same is liable to be deprecated.”
“An advocate's clerk, no doubt renders invaluable assistance in the advocate's office...Nothing entitles or enables an advocate's clerk to appear before the Court on behalf of an advocate," it added.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Shyam Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 390
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a trial court order acquitting an accused under the POCSO Act, stating that no person can be convicted solely based on the DNA report, in the absence of any specific allegations of rape/sexual assault by the prosecutrix.
A written report was filed against the accused by the father of prosecutrix, alleging abduction of his minor daughter. Case was registered against the accused, but when the statements of the prosecutrix were taken, she did not support the allegation of sexual/assault or rape against him and was declared hostile.
Reference was made to the division bench decisions of the Court in Dalla Ram v State of Rajasthan and Bhagwan Bairwa v State of Rajasthan, and it was opined that no conviction could be made solely on the basis of DNA report, and the same could not be treated as corroborative evidence.
Title: Mukesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 391
Highlighting the “pathetic form” and incorrigible manner of preparing the Medico Legal Reports by the doctors and medical jurists, Rajasthan High Court issued directions for the State Government, making the use of Medico legal Examination and Post Morten Reporting (MedLEaPR) Software (“the Software”) mandatory with effect from February 1, 2026.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania was hearing a bail application filed by the applicant who was accused in the murder case of his brother, wherein serious difficulty was faced by the Court in understanding the Post-Mortem Report.
In this light, it was opined that despite the country having a robust digital system in place, the medical reports were prepared by hand in a casual and negligent manner which were illegible and incomprehensible.
In this background, directions were issued to the State Government.
Title: Sundar Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 392
Observing that every trial is meant to discover the truth and filing false documents amounts to fraud on the court, the Rajasthan High Court upheld an order directing enquiry into the genuineness of an allegedly forged sale deed.
The court at the outset noted, “Truth is the foundation of justice…The entire judicial system has been created only to discover and establish the real truth…Justice founded on the truth would establish peace and harmony in the society. For the common man, truth and justice are synonymous and inseparable. So when truth fails, justice fails.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand made these observations while rejecting a petition that challenged the directions by the district judge for conducting an enquiry regarding an agreement that was allegedly executed in 2000, while one of the witnesses had testified that the parties to the agreement had passed away prior to such execution.
Title: Harjeet Singh v Oriental Bank of Commerce and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 393
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the technical definition of “indigent” under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of CPC, could not be transposed mechanically into the domain of compassionate appointment as that would reduce the scheme illusory,by imposing a threshold that no eligible family could practically meet.
“Indigent Person” under CPC meant that a person who did not possess sufficient means to pay the requisite court fees and was not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees.
“…no person engaged in public or private employment, who receives a regular salary, allowances, statutory benefits or retiral dues can ever fall within such an extreme definition of indigence that equates to beggary or absolute pauperism. Extending this standard posthumously to the dependents of a deceased government employee is wholly unrealistic, for no class of salaried employees could ever satisfy such a test,” Justice Farjand Ali said.
Title: Nakul Patidar & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 394
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the State cannot extend an attractive promise at the stage of recruitment and later altogether depart from it without any rational justification.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that a legitimate expectation could undoubtedly arise in the candidates' mind at the time of entering service that their posting would be in or around the regions for which the recruitment was conceived especially when the advertisement was structured in a manner that conveyed a linkage with such areas.
“A legitimate expectation can, without doubt, arise in the mind of a candidate at the time of entering service particularly when an advertisement is structured in a manner that clearly conveys a linkage with tribal/mineral areas that their posting would be in or around the regions for which the recruitment was conceived. The petitioners, belonging to vulnerable tribal communities, deserved at least a measure of sympathetic consideration. The State cannot extend an attractive promise at the stage of recruitment and later altogether depart from it without any rational justification.”
Title: Yatendra Kumar Nagori v The Special Secretary Cum Vice Chairperson & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 395
Rajasthan High Court observed that in Indian culture and society, women are respected and honoured for the well-being of the community, and any misconduct towards them invites serious consequences.
The observations were made by the division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Ravi Chirania while rejecting the petition filed against the termination of a primary teacher at Kendra Vidyalaya pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry that confirmed his involvement in immoral sexual harassment and misbehavior with a child of class VI.
“In our considered opinion, even the statement of victim child “A” is sufficient to bring home the allegations levelled against the Petitioner. However, the respondents have conducted a thorough enquiry before passing the order dated 16.10.2015.”
Title: Nurul Islam & Anr. v Rajasthan Govt.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 396
While underscoring the extension of fundamental rights under Article 21 to foreign nationals, Rajasthan High Court slammed the trial court for failing to frame charges and commence trial in a matter concerning two Bangladeshi citizens in jail for over 1.5 years.
In doing so the court underscored that foreign nationals facing trial in India are also entitled to Right to Life and Dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are foreign Nationals and resident of Bangladesh and were in judicial custody since April, 2024 in a criminal case.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that such act of the trial court was not appreciated, and it could not defer the matter from one day to another unnecessarily by entertaining unwanted requests made by parties, and causing delays in framing the charges.
Title: Gopal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 397
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a successful NEET candidate whose candidature was rejected solely on the ground that he did not pursue Biology in Class 11th, rather studied and passed it in Class 12th only, that too as an additional subject.
The bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati opined that the Public Notice issued in 2023 by the National Medical Commission (“NMC”), as well as the Information Booklet issued in harmony with the Public Notice, clearly indicated that Biology was not a compulsory subject in Class 11th for the purpose of admission to the MBBS Course.
The Court observed that looking at the public notice, the information booklet, as well as the context of the regulations, it was clear that the intention was to allow the candidates who had undertaken these subjects as additional at the time of passing 12th and not after having passed the examination. Usage of the word “after” was a drafting error.
Title: Ashish Dave v The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 398
Remarking that "media professionals are expected to avoid causing undue harm to anyone by way of threat or extortion", the Rajasthan High Court refused to quash an extortion FIR registered against former Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan on a complaint filed by the company.
While underscoring the far-reaching impact of media, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that media, being the fourth pillar of democracy plays a vital role in a country's social, political, economical and international affairs and ensured individual's participation in the decision making process.
However, this immense power comes with responsibility of avoiding causing undue harm to anyone by threatening or extortion.
Title: M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. v the State of Rajasthan & Anr. and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 399
Rajasthan High Court took a serious note of several cognizance orders being passed by Magistrates in “very casual and cursory manner, without due application of judicial mind”, without perusing the records, or ensuring that there existed any prima facie case.
In doing so the court referred the matter to the Chief Justice on the administrative side, to consider sending the order to Judicial Officers of the State asking them to remain careful in future while passing such orders, and to consider sending order to State Judicial Academy to formulate a course in the training of the Judicial Officers.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand remarked:
"It is further noticed that in some of the cases, cognizance orders are being passed in proformas and in cyclostyle manner. Although, meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required at this stage but at least a formal application of mind must be there. The order of taking cognizance and issuance of process against the accused is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind as to whether there is a prima facie case to take cognizance and there exists sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused".
Title: Shyam Sundar Vaishnav v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 400
Rajasthan High Court came down heavily upon the State for not complying with the reinstatement order of the Industrial Tribunal passed in 2019, and opined that this failure coupled with the State's attempt to raise a belated, untenable and legally unsound plea, exhibited a “contumacious disregard for the rule of law”.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the architecture of a tribunal was not merely administrative but quasi-judicial and orders emanating from it were judicial in essence, endowed with authoritative efficacy. Such orders could not be treated as inconsequential, advisory or optional for compliance.
Title: Adnan Haider Bhai v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 401
The Rajasthan High Court has issued a bunch of directions to different State departments to handle the issue of cyber crimes, artificial intelligence as well as deep fake, for ensuring digital safety and security of the residents.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania was hearing bail applications of two young adults who were accused of impersonating themselves as Sub-Inspectors to an elderly couple of more than 80 years of age, and extorting over Rs. 2 crores from them by putting them under digital arrest.
“The concern of almost all Courts etc. in the country from Hon'ble Supreme Court, All High Courts, All District Courts, all States/ UT's ,the Police and other Investigating Agencies etc. is how to handle this new, unstoppable and exponentially growing problem which is before them due to fast changing digital technology. The digital world/information technology has seriously affected the following: (i) society and personal life of common man (ii) the economy of the country (iii) law and order (iv) the education system (v) the banking system etc.”
Title: Adnan Haider Bhai v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 401
The Rajasthan High Court has issued sweeping regulatory directions for app-based transport and delivery platforms, making registration of all Ola, Uber, Swiggy, Zomato drivers and other gig workers mandatory with the State Transport Department and the Director General, Cyber.
Also underscoring the need for enhanced women safety, the bench of Justice Ravi Chirania further directed the State to encourage these transportation and gig-economy companies to ensure, within six months, that at least 15% of their drivers are women, with an increase in this percentage to 25% over the next 2-3 years.
The Court issued these directions while hearing a bail application in a matter of cyber crime wherein the applicants had impersonated themselves as police officers, and extorted over Rs. 2 crore from an elderly couple by putting them under digital arrest.
Title: Ravi v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 402
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the police, appointed under the Police Act, does not have powers to investigate offences in relation to food adulteration punishable under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“the Act”).
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition seeking quashing of offences against the petitioner under Section 272, 273 and 420 of IPC, as well as under the Act.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court cases of Ram Nath v the State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and Sushil Kumar Gupta v State of West Bengal, in which it was concluded that keeping in mind the offence under Section 59 of the Act, there could not be prosecution for the offences under Section 272 and 273, IPC, respectively. Furthermore, that the police constituted under the Police Act, not being a Food Safety Officer under the Act, was not empowered to investigate into the cases.
Title: Sayed Sarfaraj v Reserve Bank of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 403
The Rajasthan High Court made a significant ruling while hearing a writ petition challenging action of State Bank of India of freezing the account of the petitioner, reflecting guiding principles for the Banks as well as the Investigating Agencies in such cases.
While disposing the writ petition, the bench of Justice Nupur Bhati, directed the bank to keep only such amount frozen in the petitioner's account that was allegedly transferred illegally while allowing the petitioner to freely use his account and make transactions using the remaining balance.
The Court further observed that in case the bank had not received any information regarding the exact figure of the disputed amount, it shall write a letter to the concerned Investigating Officer/Police to know the amount to be earmarked for lien.
Title: Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 404
While hearing a matter of police officers misbehaving with and mishandling a lawyer who was accompanying a rape victim at the police station, Rajasthan High Court observed that the advocates and police personnel are two limbs of justice delivery system who must act in tandem with each other with mutual respect and cooperation.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu opined that the police officials are required to be given soft skill training and noted that it was expected from the Commissionerate that this aspect shall be informed to the police academy where police officers are trained.
Title: Sunil Samdaria v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 405
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the single judge bench decision that rejected the challenge against the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as Additional Advocate General for the state of Rajasthan in the Supreme Court.
Notably, Mishra is the son of Justice PK Mishra, Judge of the Supreme Court. The plea claimed that Mishra was appointed as AAG despite not meeting the requisite experience to be eligible for the post in accordance with the State Litigation Policy 2018.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu held that the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy 2018 was a guideline and not a hard and fast rule. And therefore, it was not enforceable in law against which writ of quo warranto could lie.
Title: Kirti Chowdhary v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 406
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that a reserved category candidate who had not availed of any relaxation except for fee relaxation, and had secured higher marks than the last selected candidate of the General Category, was mandatorily required to be migrated to the general category.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali stated that underlying principle behind such decision is that the General Category is a category of open merit and any candidate, irrespective of community is entitled to compete therein.
The Court highlighted the settled position in the Supreme Court case of Deepa E.V. v Union of India in which it was held that a reserved category candidate who had secured higher marks that the General category cut-off, and had not taken benefit of reservation except fee concession, could not be denied selection in the general category.
Title: Eshita Gupta v Jaipur National University & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a former MBBS student, whose original documents were detained by the university which she required to appear in her examinations in the new college, and held that documents deposited by a student at the time of admission could not be retained as a tool to compel her to deposit the fee for remaining years.
The bench of Justice Anuroop Singhi was hearing a petition wherein the petitioner prayed for directions to university for release of her original documents that were submitted by her while taking admission in MBBS course in 2022.
It was held that even the affidavit executed by the student or her parents failed to give any unfettered right to the university to keep the documents to prejudice and hamper the further career growth of a student.
Title: Priya Suman & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 408
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Nodal Officer of a Police Station to promptly decide the representations seeking protection, filed by an 18 year old woman and a 19 year old man, fearing threats from their family members owing to their decision to stay in a live-in relationship.
While underscoring the rulings made of the Supreme Court, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that both the petitioners were major and could not be left at the mercy of the respondents who were against their decision, especially when staying in a live-in relationship by two major consenting individuals was not considered an offence.
Title: Mahendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 409
The Rajasthan High Court directed the premature release of man, imprisoned for life for murdering his father, based on the Amicus Curiae's report that refuted the Advisory Committee's grounds for rejection that the man was a mentally unstable person whose family was not willing to accept him.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anand Sharma had received a letter petition from the Central Jail, Udaipur, in which the Court had appointed an Amicus Curiae to represent the petitioner.
"The reason for rejection of the application for premature release of the convict-petitioner by the Advisory Committee is not very convincing, specially in view of the report of the learned Amicus Curiae wherein it has come on record that mental condition of the convict-petitioner is stable and the brother of the petitioner Mohan has agreed to take him at his house and further, he is willing to take necessary care of his brother. Therefore, there is no threat to the family as such if the convict-petitioner is released on a premature basis," the bench said.
Title: Bimla Kumari v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 410
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the 3 year degree of Bachelor of Physical Education (“BPE”) could not be differentiated from the one year decree of Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed), and the candidate possessing BPE was eligible to be appointed as Physical Training Instructor (“PTI”) Grade III.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma held that the word “B.P.E” was only to denote the course of three years, and in no other way could it be differentiated from BPEd which was only of one year. A course which was of greater duration could not be said to be lesser qualification than that of a course of one year.
Title: State Bank of India & Anr. v Babu Lal Meena
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 411
The Rajasthan High Court has invoked the Rajasthan Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 2015 to declare a former officer of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (now SBI) as a vexatious litigant, based on the finding of him habitually instituting frivolous and vindictive litigation against the bank and its officers.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu took into account the fact that the respondent who was compulsorily retired in 2015 had filed multiple FIRs across police stations in different districts against the bank as well as its 47 officers.
It was noted that such litigation was initiated in routine manner whenever a disciplinary action was contemplated against him by the bank.
Title: Kaptan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 412
While setting aside the order of a Superintendent of Police opening history sheet against the petitioner, Rajasthan High Court held that the police does not have a license to enter the names of whosoever they like or dislike in the surveillance register.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the criteria for opening history sheet was subjective satisfaction of authority, and it had to be arrived based on reasonable belief or knowledge that the concerned person was habitually addicted to aid or abet the commission of crime, whether convicted or not.
It opined that reasonable belief of the police has to be based on strong and reasonable grounds, and mere belief was not sufficient.
“The Rajasthan Police Rules do not empower the police to act in a manner that infringes upon citizen's fundamental freedom…Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the surveillance register. They must be proclaimed offenders, previous convicts, or persons who have already been placed on security for good behaviour. In addition, names of persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not, can be categorized and entered in the surveillance register under the Police Rules.”
Title: Axis Bank v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 413
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Axis Bank challenging Trial Court order directing it to re-deposit around Rs. 8 crore that it had unilaterally appropriated from a Fixed Deposit which was mandated by the Court.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that when a constitutional court or any court passes an order, every person or authority, regardless of rank, is duty bound to comply with it; and disobedience attacks the very foundation of rule of law on which the entire democracy is based.
Title: Smt. Anand Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 414
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 may require appropriate amendments so that provisions relating to nomination, dissolution of marriage, and entitlement are transparent and unambiguous, leaving no room for interpretational confusion, and
Justice Farjand Ali directed the Advocate General to put this in the notice of the State.
The development comes in a dispute between two women, each claiming to be the legally wedded wife of a deceased government employee, and claiming the family pension as his widow.
However, in this background, the Court clarified, “As regards to both sets of children irrespective of the marital disputes inter se their mothers are children of the deceased employee. Their entitlement to the family pension of their father cannot be extinguished whereas the share of the wife shall remain subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings.”
Title: Kuldeep Singh v D.R.I.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 415
The Rajasthan High Court recently accepted and confirmed the act of the Customs Department not invoking the provisions of the Customs Act in a case involving alleged smuggling of Hydroponic Weed from Bangkok, caught at the Airport, affirming that the NDPS Act being a special statute has overriding effect over the Customs Act, in light of its Section 80.
Furthermore, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain rejected the bail plea of the 21 year old accused in this matter, taking into account the intensity of the recovered narcotic substance, its market value being approximately Rs. 15.50 crores, and the ongoing nature of investigation.
Title: Manoj Kumar v State of Rajasthan and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 416
The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to applicants accused of facilitating a racket involving GST evasion of over Rs. 95 Crore, by onboarding certain companies with various online payment aggregators for receipt of online gaming revenues.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain opined that the alleged conduct was a serious white-collar crime with a potential significant impact on the nation's economy.
The Court highlighted that the alleged amount of tax evasion far exceeded the threshold of Rs. 5 crores, making the offence cognizable and non-bailable under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act.
“Therefore, where concealment and deliberate obfuscation of transaction trails are apparent on record, it is neither prudent nor proper to release the accused at the interlocutory stage. Moreover, the possibility of the accused continuing to facilitate or to coordinate with co-accused, domestic or foreign cannot be overlooked. Likewise, the presence of communications with a person who apparently claims foreign residence, the large sums involved and the ease of movement of funds through intermediaries create a realistic and not speculative possibility that the applicants may abscond to defeat prosecution.”
Title: State of Rajasthan v Bhawani Singh Rajawat & other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 417
The Rajasthan High Court has granted leave to the State Government permitting withdrawal of prosecution against a former MLA and State's Minister for School Education, opining that the public unrest, as alleged in the FIRs, had arisen out of the issues involving public interest and was not driven by any personal motive.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand took note of the fact that allegations related to peaceful protests being conducted over issues of water scarcity and demand for justice from the administration, which did not reflect any attempt to disrupt public order.
The Court further recorded that the protests were initiated in the interest of public at large, and being the elected representatives, the accused had a social and legal obligation to put forth and raise the concerns of their people.
Title: Smt. Kali v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 418
Rajasthan High Court denied sending a woman back to jail whose punishment for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder was reduced by the division court 15 years ago based on an erroneous assumption that she was had already undergone a period of almost 8 years in jail, when in actuality she had been in prison for only around 2 years.
The division bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Anand Sharma took into account the totality of the circumstances, and looking at these as mitigating factors, it was opined that such circumstances necessitated modulation of the sentence within the legally permissible range to ensure that justice was tempered with compassion, proportionality and humane considerations.
“At a human level, this Court cannot remain unmindful of the stark reality that directing this impoverished woman to undergo the remaining six years of the sentence, after twenty long years of struggle and having already borne the irreversible personal consequences of the incident, would be an unduly harsh course.”
The Court further opined that the administrative miscommunication was a result of a systemic lapse involving the Registry of the Court, the Trial Court, the government authorities and the Public Prosecutor, and was not attributable to the convict. Hence, its burden could not be put on an impoverished tribal woman.
Title: Brij Mohan v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 419
The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal against a 1994 conviction of a seller under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”) who allegedly abused a purchaser based on his caste, opining that caste based abuse inside the four walls of a closed showroom did not fulfill the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the expression “in any place within the public view” in the provision meant that the alleged insult must have occurred at a place where it was capable of being witnessed by members of public other than the complainant and the accused.
“This Court reiterates, with emphasis, that the textual and purposive interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, mandates that the alleged act must occur at a place “within public view”, a locus so situated or exposed that the conduct in question is capable of being observed, perceived or witnessed by members of the general public. The statutory phrase imports an objective criterion of public visibility: it is not satisfied by the mere presence of more than one person or by a private exchange between individuals, but by the availability of the scene to public observation and scrutiny.”
Title: Himmat Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 420
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali at the Rajasthan High Court set aside a 1998 conviction of the appellant under the Essential Commodities Act, 1998 (“the Act”) opining that gas-regulators by themselves could not be treated as “essential commodities” under the Act unless specifically notified by law.
The appellant was allegedly found to be in the possession of 38 gas regulators without having a valid license, which was seen as contravention of the Act, resulting in the appellant's conviction which was challenged before the Court.
“A gas regulator is merely an accessory or an appliance used in conjunction with liquefied petroleum gas and cannot, in the absence of a specific statutory mandate, be elevated to the status of an essential commodity. In the absence of such legislative or executive backing, the very edifice of the prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act stands denuded of legal foundation.”
Title: Gangeshwar Lal Shrivastava v State of Rajasthan and Vikram Bhatt v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 421
The Rajasthan High Court reserved verdict on a plea moved by producer and film-maker Vikram Bhatt seeking quashing of an FIR for allegedly cheating the complainant of Rs. 42 crore and had taken advances under the garb of making films.
The FIR was registered against Bhatt following his arrest on December 7.
The Court heard extensive arguments from all sides, including that of the police authorities who submitted that the preliminary enquiry was carried out as per the prescribed procedure. At the same time, the petitioners were served well in advance by way of email before making the arrests.
After hearing all the contentions, the Court gave the opportunity to the parties to submit written submission and reserved the order.
Title: Shankar Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 422
Rajasthan High Court set aside the dismissal of a police constable imposed by senior police authority while exercising suo-motu review powers under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, opining that preliminary enquiry could not be made sole basis of punishment when such material did not come on record during the regular enquiry.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the reviewing authority committed serious error while basing the ultimate punishment almost entirely on the preliminary enquiry despite the fact that the prosecution case collapsed during the regular disciplinary proceedings.
“It is a trite and settled proposition of service jurisprudence that the purpose of a Preliminary Enquiry is only to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists to warrant a detailed investigation or a regular departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. Once the formal enquiry is initiated, the charges must be proved by the prosecution through legally admissible evidence led during the regular proceedings.”
Title: Jai Rao v State of Rajasthan and Other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 423
The Rajasthan High Court recently refused to entertain pleas by students challenging inaction by State in conducting Student Union elections for 2025-26 for the State University, holding that the petitioners lacked locus standi and the pleas were filed at a pre-decisional stage in the absence of any demonstrable violation of legal or fundamental right.
Justice Sameer Jain said that even while declining relief, a constitutional court is not denuded of its power to issue appropriate obiter or prospective directions in aid of good governance, institutional accountability, and to obviate recurring litigation.
"Student democracy and academic autonomy are not adversaries; when guided by discipline, transparency, and reason, both coexist to strengthen the very foundation of education” the court underscored.
However in light of the "larger public interest", academic ecosystem of universities and the need to balance student participation with academic discipline, certain directions were issued to be operated prospectively and not in relation to this year's student elections.
Title: Jai Rao v State of Rajasthan and Other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 423
The Rajasthan High Court has issues directions to the Election Commission of India (“ECI”) to the effect that as far as practicable, universities and colleges, imparting higher education should not be used as polling stations or for any other election-related purposes during general elections.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that while the conduct of general elections was a constitutional necessity, it could not be effectuated at the disproportionate cost of academic disruptions in institutions of higher learning, especially in the regime of National Education Policy, 2020.
“It is observed that institutions imparting higher education, particularly State-funded Universities and affiliated Government Colleges, constitute specialized academic ecosystems meant exclusively for teaching, research, innovation, and holistic student development. The infrastructure of such institutions is not fungible in nature, and once academic continuity is disrupted, the loss caused to students, especially in a semester-based system cannot be adequately restituted.”
Title: Asfaq Khan & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 424
Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petitions filed by four convicts of the December 1993 serial train Bomb Blast cases presently serving life sentence, who had sought premature release and had challenged the rejection of their representations by the State Government.
The division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that while exercising power of judicial review, the Court can neither sit as Appellate Authority nor is expected to re-appreciate the entire factual matrix to draw a different conclusion/inference than taken by the competent authorities.
Unless and until, it is found that the decision impugned has been taken by the authorities without application of mind to the relevant factors or the same is founded on the extraneous or irrelevant consideration or is vitiated due to malafides or patent arbitrariness, same does not warrant any interference by the High Court.
Title: Sushila v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 425
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to “sympathetically” grant another opportunity to a woman candidate to appear in the Physical Efficiency Test (“PET”) for the post of constable-driver, who was disqualified from the PET in the selection process after she could not qualify in the running test since she had given birth just 15 days back.
The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman highlighted that the recruitment rules as well as the advertisement conditions took into account the medical condition of pregnant or post-partum women, and discouraged them from participating in physical tests requiring strength.
“Considering the medical and physical condition of the petitioner, the delivery date and the scheduled date for Physical Efficiency Test, this Court is of the view that the present petitioner shall be given one more opportunity to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test keeping in mind the relaxation as provided in terms of the conditions of the advertisement.”
Title: Charan Singh Singaria v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 426
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to an accused whose passport was directed to be impounded for violating his bail conditions by travelling abroad without court's permission, opining that continued impounding of passport would violate his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that even though the Court was taking a lenient view, the act of the petitioner was totally unwarranted and amounted to disobedience of the court's order. “Disobedience of the orders passed by the Court attacks the very foundation of the rule of law, on which the entire democracy is based.”
Title: Lokesh Kumar Meena v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 427
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a petitioner whose car was seized by the police in relation to an NDPS case, after contraband was recovered from it, noting that the no involvement of the petitioner was found in the case during investigation, neither was he impleaded as an accused in the FIR.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, in which it was held that where no allegation was made in the charge-sheet against the owner of the vehicle or his agent like driver or cleaner, the vehicle should normally be released.
Rajasthan Housing Board Can't Cancel Auction Merely Because It Received Single Bid: High Court
Title: Smt. Kamla Jain v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 428
The Rajasthan High Court asserted that allocation of an auction cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that there was a single bidder and hence, “lack of competition”, especially when the bidder had complied with all the stipulated conditions.
Justice Nupur Bhati was hearing a petition by a person who participated in Rajasthan Housing Board's e-auction for a commercial plot, and submitted the highest bid, following which all the stipulated conditions were also fulfilled by the petitioner.
Title: Dudhu Gram Seva Shakari Samiti Ltd. v The Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 429
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a bunch of petitions filed by primary agricultural credit societies seeking acceptance of the demonized notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 held by these societies, and upheld RBI's 2016 circulars barring District Central Cooperative Banks from accepting the demonized notes.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi held that the circulars restraining District Central Co-operative Banks from accepting or exchanging specified bank notes were not without any rationale and had imposed the restrictions uniformly to all similarly situated banks.
“Mere hardship or inconvenience, howsoever genuine, cannot by itself be a ground for invalidating regulatory measures taken in furtherance of a legitimate economic objective…impugned circulars dated 14.11.2016 and 17.11.2016 do not suffer from arbitrariness, illegality or constitutional infirmity so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”
Title: Akash Construction vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 430
The Rajasthan High Court, in a matter concerning effective service of appellate order and consideration of condonation of delay application, has set aside order passed by the Appellate Authority.
In a recent judgment a Division Bench comprising, Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit on dismissal of appeal on account of limitation, emphasized that condonation of delay application must be judiciously considered. The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition while upholding the legal principle of deemed service through the GST portal as a valid communication.