NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 264 - 267]Union of India & Ors. v No. 610812A Ex MWO Prabhu Singh Shekhawat; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 264Purshottam Lal v Ritu Banawat & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 265Pradushan Nivaran And Paryavaran Sanrakshan Samiti & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.Suo Moto In Re Compliance With The Directions Issued By The Supreme Court In Suo Moto v Union of...
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 264 - 267]
Union of India & Ors. v No. 610812A Ex MWO Prabhu Singh Shekhawat; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 264
Purshottam Lal v Ritu Banawat & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 265
Pradushan Nivaran And Paryavaran Sanrakshan Samiti & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Suo Moto In Re Compliance With The Directions Issued By The Supreme Court In Suo Moto v Union of India
Vivekanand Vidya Ashram Sansthan v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266
M/s Shyam and Shyam Oil Mills Private Limited v Gnet Impex Private Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
Rajiv Pratap Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Suo Motu v State of Rajasthan
Roopraj Prajapat v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order/Judgments of the Week
Title: Union of India & Ors. v No. 610812A Ex MWO Prabhu Singh Shekhawat
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 264
Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 15,000 on the State for denying the benefits of the 5th Central Pay Commission to an ex-air force personnel, and opined that the benefits of revised pay scales arising from the 5th Central Pay Commission had to be given effect from January 1, 1996 and not October 10, 1997.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati further opined that despite having knowledge of a Supreme Court decision (Jai Narayan Jakhar v. Union of India 2008) that dealt with similar facts and reached the same conclusion, State's conduct of denying similar treatment to the respondent amount to discriminatory treatment and gross arbitrariness.
The Court referred to the report of Ministry of Defence, Raksha Mantri's Committee of Experts, published in 2015, in which Chapter II provided that revised pay scales owing to the 5th pay commission that got implemented on October 10, 1997, had to be given effect from January 1, 1996.
Title: Purshottam Lal v Ritu Banawat & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 265
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to set aside the election of Bayana MLA Ritu Banawat in the 2023 Assembly elections over alleged defects in her asset disclosure affidavit filed with the nomination papers, holding that only defects of a substantial character that materially affect the election can warrant invalidation of the electoral mandate.
Justice Sudesh Bansal however imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the MLA for evading service of summons and delaying the proceedings.
“Respondent No.1 is an elected Member of Legislative Assembly in General State Assembly Election, 2023 and holds a constitutional position so also can be assumed to be a public figure in her Constituency Bayana, hence, she is not expected to play the game of hide and seek, to evade Court summons and thereby cannot be permitted to dishonor and disregard, the process of law because same would yield bad precedent. Such conduct of respondent No.1 deserves to be deprecated and suitable cost is liable to be imposed upon her,” the bench said.
Title: Pradushan Nivaran And Paryavaran Sanrakshan Samiti & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has questioned the State government for proposing to construct a road on the river bed of a seasonal river.
The Court opined that allowing such proposition would create a precedent whereby State could routinely utilize a river land merely because it was administratively convenient and did not require acquisition proceedings.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati observed that river land constituted a distinct environmental and ecological resource, and its character could not be altered merely because a proposed project served public purpose.
It was further highlighted that in Rajasthan a large number of rivers were seasonal or ephemeral in nature and carried water only during particular periods of the year. But such temporary absence of visible water did not alter their legal or ecological character as river beds.
In this background, the Court sought an affidavit to be submitted by the State with a proposed solution to the issue accompanied with an expert report examining the technical feasibility of the solution.
Stray Dog Issue: Rajasthan High Court Directs Registration Of Pets 'That May Threaten Human Life'
Title: Suo Moto In Re Compliance With The Directions Issued By The Supreme Court In Suo Moto v Union of India
While hearing its suo moto case in relation to compliance of Supreme Court's directions for removal of stray dogs from public spaces, the Rajasthan High Court has called for a detailed report delineating the steps taken by the State authorities.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma further directed the State to take steps for registration of all pets “who may threaten human life including dogs”, and to lay down a time-frame for the same with consequential penalties.
The Court observed that for effective implementation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, an accountability procedure would have to be set up on the respective responsible officials.
It was further stated that all steps for preventing instances of dog bites shall be taken, and the State authorities along with State Legal Services Authority and Municipal Cooperation and Veterinary Department, shall further take steps to educate at the grass root level to handle such situation.
Title: Vivekanand Vidya Ashram Sansthan v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Rajasthan High Court has stayed Rajasthan University of Health Sciences-CUET 2026 Counselling and Allotment Schedule for admissions B.Sc. Nursing, Diploma in Pharmacy (D.Pharm) & Bachelor of Physiotherapy Courses, after noting that state government did not act on pending pleas by various institutions seeking No Objection certificates.
The bench of Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit observed that if the counselling was allowed to proceed before adjudication of the pending applications moved by petitioner institutions for grant of No Objection Certificates (NOCs), the petitioners would suffer irreparable prejudice.
"This Court had earlier refrained from interfering with the counselling process solely on the assurance given by learned Advocate General that no counselling had commenced and no notification had been issued. However, the notification dated 11.06.2026 now placed on record demonstrates that the counselling schedule has now been notified. If the counselling process is permitted to proceed before adjudication of the pending applications for grant of NOCs, the petitioner-institutions, whose applications have remained pending solely on account of inaction of the respondent authorities, would suffer irreparable prejudice".
Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266
The Rajasthan High Court has directed transport authorities to strictly enforce compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder for all passenger buses plying in the State, irrespective of whether they are registered in Rajasthan or any other State.
Observing that unauthorized modifications in buses have led to several fire incidents resulting in fatal accidents, the Court stressed that both transport authorities and transporters bear a responsibility to ensure that passenger vehicles conform to the prescribed statutory safety norms.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma observed,
“…so much more responsibility lies on the department to see that the norms are strictly complied with by the transporter and similarly responsibility also lies on transporter to see that the vehicles are in accordance with the norms laid down for the purpose of passenger buses.”
Title: M/s Shyam and Shyam Oil Mills Private Limited v Gnet Impex Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once pleadings are completed, and affidavits and relevant material has already come on record, the endeavour of the Court should ordinarily be to decide the application for temporary injunction itself rather than devoting time to decide the ad-interim injunction.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that if an elaborate hearing is required for considering the prayer for ad-interim protection, the Court might be in a position to finally decide the application for temporary injunction itself which would advance the object of expeditious justice and avoid unnecessary multiplicity of interlocutory proceedings.
“…the very object underlying an ad interim injunction is to grant immediate and short-lived protection in exceptional circumstances until the application for temporary injunction can be finally heard. Once notice has been served upon the opposite party, pleadings have been completed, replies have been filed and affidavits and relevant material have come on record, the endeavour of the Court should ordinarily be to decide the application for temporary injunction itself rather than devoting considerable judicial time to an elaborate adjudication of the ad interim prayer,” the Court said.
Title: Rajiv Pratap Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Rajasthan High Court has suspended the ad-hoc committee constituted by the state government for conducting elections of the Managing Committee of the Rajasthan Cricket Association (“RCA”) and set aside the government's order extending its tenure.
This came in the background of no explanation being furnished by the Registrar, Cooperatives Society, Rajasthan, regarding committee's failure to conduct the elections in a timely manner.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma has appointed Mr. Bhaskar A. Sawant, Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, to act as Administrator for the RCA.
The Court has directed the Administrator to declare the schedule of elections and inform the Court before the next date, and further to personally make sure that the elections were concluded within a period of 3 months.
Title: Suo Motu v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the death of dacoit Jagan Gurjar who was lodged in Ajmer Central Jail.
While the asking the State to file a report relating to jail administration, the court also asked the counsel appearing for the High Court to file a report explaining how cameras were found to be inoperative/ hazy and why the concerned Officer who is required to keep a vigil on the cameras did not report about it.
As per a PTI report, Gurjar was found dead under suspicious circumstances in the jail on Monday.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma at the Rajasthan High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the murder of Chambal dacoit Jagan Gurjar while being imprisoned inside the Ajmer Central Jail.
Title: Roopraj Prajapat v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Rajasthan High Court has directed the Revenue Secretary to initiate departmental proceedings against the Tehsildar and Patwari of Khedli village in Karauli district, who failed to remove illegal encroachments despite multiple orders by the Court in that regard, and did not furnish explanation towards such inaction.
The officials have been directed to remain suspended till the conclusion of the proceedings.
“…to the shock and surprise of this Court, both of them admit that there are encroachments and want further seven day's time to remove the encroachments. Apparently, they have no regard for the Court's orders and have shown disrespect at the same time, they are apparently guilty of not performing their duties.”
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma further ordered the Additional Advocate General to issue instructions to the SHO of the concerned village and other revenue authorities to immediately remove the encroachments, and submit the report on the next date.