LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 21 - September 27, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 391 - 403]Pooran Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 391Parmila Gupta v Jaipur Airport Authority & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 392Shri Choth Mal Verma and Anr. v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 393State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Jeetendra Kumar Choudhary; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 394Munni Devi...
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 391 - 403]
Pooran Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 391
Parmila Gupta v Jaipur Airport Authority & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 392
Shri Choth Mal Verma and Anr. v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 393
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Jeetendra Kumar Choudhary; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 394
Munni Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 395
Chairman cum Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v Jagdish Chandra Bissa; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 396
Mohd. Sharif & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 397
Gulam Mohd. V Gopal Traders & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 398
Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 399
Kanta Devi & Ors. v Parsaram & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 400
Bihari Lal v Navratanmal Bamb & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 402
Heera Mani v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 403
Sushil Midha v State of Rajasthan
Sumit & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Anil Mittal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order/Judgments of the Week
Title: Pooran Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 391
The Rajasthan High Court has held that while exercising powers under Section 125 Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (the “Act”), the Registrar cannot make such interference that curtails or undermines the autonomy of the society.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma was hearing a petition challenging the orders by which the petitioner's regularisation as a Class IV employee of the Central Cooperative Bank Limited was cancelled and his services were terminated.
Title: Parmila Gupta v Jaipur Airport Authority & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 392
The Rajasthan High Court has granted a last opportunity to a woman to lead her evidence in a land acquisition case pending for over 12 years, subject to her depositing Rs. 10,000 in the Junior Advocates Welfare Fund and planting 25 shade-bearing trees in a public area.
A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition challenging an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, which had closed the petitioner's opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examination in a land acquisition reference.
Title: Shri Choth Mal Verma and Anr. v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 393
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered transfer of 25% monthly salary of a deceased employee's former wife, to his mother's account, after the wife remarried and allegedly abandoned the parents of the deceased, despite securing compassionate appointment after his death.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that after availing benefit of compassionate appointment based on an undertaking that she would maintain other family members too, the wife could not disassociate herself from the obligation that formed the basis of the appointment.
“Her subsequent departure from the matrimonial home and remarriage, coupled with the admitted failure to maintain the petitioners, is nothing but apparent violation of fundamental spirit of scheme of compassionate appointment. It cannot be countenanced that, after the death of her husband, the daughter-in-law, having secured compassionate appointment in his place, may thereafter abandon her old aged in-laws and leave them at the mercy of destiny.”
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Jeetendra Kumar Choudhary
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 394
The Rajasthan High Court has held that State can withhold the appointment of a person against whom a criminal case is pending, since it could not be presumed that in a pending criminal case, a person seeking employment would be acquitted.
The bench of former Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekha Sharma, opined that if a person, who was facing criminal charges, was given employment, it would send a wrong message to other persons because such person's character could not be said to be clean and would be in cloud till he was acquitted.
Title: Munni Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 395
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a candidate for the post of Class-IV teacher, who was seeking change of her category from OBC to General while contending that the mistake was inadvertent committed by the e-mitra operator who filled her form, and was not deliberate on her part.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sandeep Shah affirmed that the status of a candidate in a competitive selection had to remain consistent throughout the process. It was observed that the petitioner was given enough opportunities to rectify the error, however, the rectification application was moved only after the declaration of the result.
“The fact that the appellant waited for the declaration of the result itself reflects that the appellant had purposely chosen not to change the category in the form filled up by her.”
Title: Chairman cum Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v Jagdish Chandra Bissa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 396
Rajasthan High Court upheld a single judge order directing the State to reimburse the respondent for the entire cost of the stents implanted during his treatment at the government hospital which were procured from a private supplier due to unavailability at the hospital.
While underscoring the right to healthcare and affordable treatment as part of Article 21, the division bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the provisions relating to reimbursement of medical treatment had to be construed liberally.
Title: Mohd. Sharif & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 397
While dismissing a petition which was referred to a larger bench to decide a substantial question of law, Rajasthan High Court held that mere formulation or reference of a substantial question of law did not, by itself, compel the Court to adjudicate the matter in case subsequent events had rendered the matter infructuous and the controversy merely academic.
The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal, Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sameer Jain, opined that a constitutional court did not pronounce on question of law in factual vacuum, particularly when the answer did not alter the position of parties, neither resulted in any effective relief.
“The mere pendency of a reference for a long period cannot by itself justify adjudication of an otherwise academic question. The Court must first ascertain whether a live lis survives and whether determination of the referred question would have any operative consequence in the present proceedings. Where subsequent statutory developments, efflux of time and intervening circumstances have extinguished the controversy, the question ought to be left open for determination in an appropriate case where its adjudication would have an actual legal consequence.”
Title: Gulam Mohd. V Gopal Traders & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 398
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an authenticated bank return memo bearing the bank's seal and signature can be produced and exhibited later in a cheque-dishonour case to correct an inadvertent defect in an earlier return memo, and such subsequent production does not amount to filling a lacuna in the complainant's case.
Justice Sunil Beniwal further observed that merely exhibiting a document does not amount to admitting or proving it as evidence. The purpose of exhibiting a document is to mark it for identification, while its admissibility and evidentiary value have to be determined separately in accordance with law.
Title: Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 399
While underscoring right to fair trial under Article 21, Rajasthan High Court held that if the prosecution was relying upon the contents of a DVD/pen drive which were also submitted along with the charge-sheet, the accused had to be mandatorily given a cloned copy of the DVD/pen drive, to enable him to present an effective defence during the trial.
“…all documents including “electronic record” produced for the inspection of the Court along-with the police report and which prosecution proposes to use against the accused must be furnished to the accused as per the mandate of Section 207 of the 1973 Code. The concomitant is that the contents of the DVD/pen drive must be furnished to the accused, which can be done in the form of cloned copy of the DVD /pendrive.”
At the same time, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that in cases where the issue of privacy of the complainant/victim/prosecutrix or his/her identity was involved, the Court was justified in providing the inspection of such DVD/Pen drive only to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert.
Title: Kanta Devi & Ors. v Parsaram & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 400
The Rajasthan High Court held that when the process server's report reflected a locked house or an incomplete address, it did not by itself justify adopting the substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC, unless the Court was satisfied that the defendant was deliberately evading service and ordinary service was impracticable.
“The Court must apply its mind to the process server's report and the surrounding circumstances and arrive at an informed conclusion that ordinary service cannot reasonably be effected. Such satisfaction may, depending upon the language and circumstances, be inferred from the order itself and need not invariably be expressed in any particular formula. But the record must nevertheless disclose the existence of the judicial satisfaction which the statute requires.”
While setting aside an ex-party decree in a suit of specific performance, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the power to direct the exceptional mode of substituted service under Order V Rule 20, CPC, was not absolute.
Title: Jairam v Sub-Division Magistrate and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 401
The Rajasthan High Court ordered disposal of a 63-year-old revenue case in 3 months without any adjournments, holding that in case of failure by the Presiding Officer of revenue court directions will be issued to higher authorities to take appropriate action against the officer including adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report.
While recording “harsh reality of the system prevailing in Revenue Courts Administration System”, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the sole reason for such long pendency was the practice of seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Court held that this situation and work culture had to be changed to move away from unnecessary adjournments.
Title: Bihari Lal v Navratanmal Bamb & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 402
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a handwriting expert's report cannot be introduced at the evidence stage to support a forgery plea that was never raised in the written statement, observing that evidence cannot be used to introduce a new factual foundation or defence beyond the pleadings.
A bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that pleadings constitute the foundation of evidence and the opposite party is entitled to know the precise case it is required to meet. Allowing a new factual plea to be introduced for the first time through evidence would cause prejudice to the opposite party.
“The distinction between elaboration of a pleaded case and introduction of a wholly new case cannot be overlooked. Evidence is intended to substantiate the pleadings; it cannot be employed as a device to supply the very foundation which the pleadings themselves do not contain.”
Absence Due To Prolonged Illness Not Wilful Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Termination
Title: Heera Mani v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 403
While setting aside termination order of a deceased-employee, the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur at the Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the absence of an employee owing to a prolonged illness did not amount to wilful absence that could attract imposition of penalty.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Krushnakat B. Parmar v. Union of India in which it was held that,
“…for sustaining allegations of failure to maintain devotion to duty due to absence and conduct unbecoming of government servant and dismissal based thereupon it must be proved that unauthorized absence was willful. If absence is due to compelling circumstances under which it is not possible to report for or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful and employee guilty of misconduct”
Title: Sushil Midha v State of Rajasthan
Title: Sumit & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
In two hearings held on Sunday, the Rajasthan High Court granted interim protection from arrest to two ward members booked in separate FIRs ahead of elections to two separate Municipal Councils.
In the first case, the petitioner therein had been elected as a Ward Member of the Municipal Council, Shri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar, on September 14, 2026. He was subsequently declared a candidate for the post of Chairperson on September 18, with the election scheduled for September 21.
Justice Sunil Beniwal noted that the alleged incident took place on September 16, while the FIR was lodged on September 19—after a delay of about three days. It further noted that the FIR was lodged soon after the petitioner was declared a candidate for the Chairperson election on September 18.
Considering these circumstances and the totality of the facts, the Court deemed it appropriate, as an interim measure, to grant protection to the petitioner.
In another case, Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati, while also hearing a matter on Sunday granted interim protection to the petitioners therein apprehending arrest that might prevent them from casting votes in the election for the Chairperson, Municipal Council, Hanumangarh, scheduled for September 21.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted the no material was placed on record by the petitioners to disclose the basis of their apprehension that could suggest that there was a likelihood of their restraint. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the Court granted interim protection and directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.
Title: Anil Mittal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Hours before the scheduled election for Chairman of the Kekri Municipal Board in Ajmer, the Rajasthan High Court on Monday (September 21) granted interim protection from arrest to a contesting candidate who apprehended that he would be arrested and prevented from participating in the poll.
The petition was heard on a public holiday, with Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observing that doors of the temple of justice cannot remain closed when urgent intervention is required to protect the fundamental and legal rights of citizens.
“The administration of justice cannot be fettered by the concept of holidays, for the cause of justice brooks no delay when the liberty, life and rights of a citizen are at stake…The Courts being the sentinel on the qui vive for the protection of the rights of the citizens, cannot shut its eyes or close its doors when a citizen approaches it for redressal of his grievance, even on a holiday.”