Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 401 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 430 NOMINAL INDEX Adnan Haider Bhai v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 401 Ravi v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 402 Sayed Sarfaraj v Reserve Bank of India & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 403 Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.;...
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 401 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 430
NOMINAL INDEX
Adnan Haider Bhai v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 401
Ravi v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 402
Sayed Sarfaraj v Reserve Bank of India & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 403
Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 404
Sunil Samdaria v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 405
Kirti Chowdhary v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 406
Eshita Gupta v Jaipur National University & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
Priya Suman & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 408
Mahendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 409
Bimla Kumari v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 410
State Bank of India & Anr. v Babu Lal Meena; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 411
Kaptan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 412
Axis Bank v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 413
Smt. Anand Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 414
Kuldeep Singh v D.R.I.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 415
Manoj Kumar v State of Rajasthan and other connected matter; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 416
State of Rajasthan v Bhawani Singh Rajawat & other connected petition; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 417
Smt. Kali v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 418
Brij Mohan v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 419
Himmat Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 420
Gangeshwar Lal Shrivastava v State of Rajasthan and Vikram Bhatt v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 421
Shankar Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 422
Jai Rao v State of Rajasthan and Other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 423
Asfaq Khan & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 424
Sushila v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 425
Charan Singh Singaria v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 426
Lokesh Kumar Meena v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 427
Smt. Kamla Jain v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 428
Dudhu Gram Seva Shakari Samiti Ltd. v The Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 429
Akash Construction vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 430
Satish Kumar Khandal v State of Rajasthan and Another
Sonu Ram Pachauri v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Teejo Devi v Union of India & Ors.
Sarita Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Kanhaiya Lal Soni & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order/Judgments of the Month
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.
Title: Satish Kumar Khandal v State of Rajasthan and Another
Rajasthan High Court issued notice on a petition challenging the validity of Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 2020 (“2020 Act”), that enhanced the stamp fee on Vakalatnama by 4 times, along with enhancement in the membership fee for the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare fund established under the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (“Act”).
The petition submitted that the objective of the Act was to include as many advocates as possible under its umbrella. However, by increasing the membership fee, the very purpose of the Act was rendered nugatory since the membership had become unaffordable for majority of advocates.
Title: Sonu Ram Pachauri v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court directed a fresh medical revaluation of an accused undergoing trial–stated to be suffering from severe dementia, observing that the previous medical board's report did not clearly specify whether the accused was fit enough to understand the proceedings against him.
In doing so the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that when an accused claims to be suffering from "unsound mind" the trial will proceed against him unless and until the medical board gives a specific opinion on the fitness of the accused to understand and participate in the trial.
Title: Teejo Devi v Union of India & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice to the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia located in New Delhi to expedite the repatriation of mortal remains of the petitioner's son who was working there and passed away in November 2025.
The bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati was hearing a petition filed by a father whose son was working in Saudi Arabia on a valid work visa, and passed away on November 13, 2025. However, till date, they were awaiting to receive his mortal remains.
Title: Sarita Kumar v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on an advocate who failed to appear when the matter was listed for final hearing, without submitting any adjournment application, on account of attending another matter in Jodhpur.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain opined that despite knowing the fact in advance that the matter was listed for final hearing, no application for adjournment was filed by the counsel.
This was considered sufficient for causing inconvenience to the other counsel as well as to give “bad impression” to the party concern.
Title: Kanhaiya Lal Soni & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Taking serious note of the increasing number of accidents on the highways on account of alcohol misuse, Rajasthan High Court directed the State to remove or relocate all the liquor shops falling within the restricted limit of 500 meters from a National or State Highway, within 2 months, irrespective of them falling under any municipal areas, local self-governing bodies or statutory development authorities.
Furthermore, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit also came down heavily upon the State for misusing the limited discretionary leverage granted under a Supreme Court precedent, to grant permissions to liquor shops along the National and State Highways, and making a “mockery of the discretion conferred”.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of State of Tamil Nadu v K Balu in which alarming scale of accidents attributable to over-speeding and intake of alcohol was recorded. The Apex Court directed that no liquor shops shall be situated within 500 meters of outer edge of a national or state highways.