LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 28 - October 4, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 404 - 413]Deepak Meena v the Chairman cum Managing Director, JVVNL & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 404E v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 405Vinita Pooniya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 406Vedprakash v Chittorgarh Central Coop. Bank Ltd. & Anr; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 407Mukhya Vyavasthapak, Banswara Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited...
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 404 - 413]
Deepak Meena v the Chairman cum Managing Director, JVVNL & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 404
E v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 405
Vinita Pooniya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 406
Vedprakash v Chittorgarh Central Coop. Bank Ltd. & Anr; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
Mukhya Vyavasthapak, Banswara Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited v Pradeep Singh Rathore & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 408
Yar Mohammad v Khudabaksh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 409
Ram Pal Meena v Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 410
Dalbeer Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 411
Rashtriya Loktanrik Party v State Election Commission, Rajasthan, and Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 412
Balavant Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 413
Pratipal Singh v State of Rajasthan
Order/Judgments of the Week
Title: Deepak Meena v the Chairman cum Managing Director, JVVNL & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 404
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order imposing penalty on the Zonal Chief Engineer of Jaipur Discom, as well as the appellate order affirming such penalty, since no consideration was given to the contents of the reply in defence that was submitted by him.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma affirmed that merely using the words that the content was considered in the order, was an empty formality and an eye wash. Consideration meant active application of mind as well as thinking over, pondering and weighing the relevant material.
Title: E v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 405
The Rajasthan High Court has held that passport authorities cannot insist a minor, who is in exclusive custody of divorced mother, to produce an undertaking of estranged father's name for renewal of passport, especially when no such document was sought at the time of issuing the passport.
The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma perused all the relevant statutory documents, to conclude that a single mother could apply for a minor's passport on which no name of the father had to be printed, where he had terminated the relationship with the mother.
“The respondents cannot now, at the stage of renewal, arbitrarily reverse this position and insist upon an undertaking, or inclusion of the father's name, by mechanically invoking the clarificatory notification dated 28.02.2023. Such rigid insistence not only disregards the statutory declaration made by the petitioner's mother in Annexure 'C', but also runs contrary to the flexible, fact-specific approach mandated by the Passport Rules and recognised by various High Courts.”
Absence Of Single Voter Can't Stall Election Or Warrant Re-Poll: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Vinita Pooniya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 406
The Rajasthan High Court has held that absence of a single voter at the time of polling could not be treated as an adverse situation warranting postponement of the elections schedule fixed by the State Election Commission and hence could not be a ground for re-polling.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that if such a situation was allowed to trigger re-polling or postponement of election schedule, there would be no end to election and every election would be liable to be postponed on the ground that one or other voter could not vote.
“The concept of re-poll is provided under the Rules of 1994 only when the polling is vitiated by booth capturing, large scale rigging, failure of EVM, riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or natural calamity which affects the free and fair polling. Isolated absence of a single voter does not fall under any of these categories. A voter cannot claim his right to vote after expiry of time fixed for polling.”
The Court further held that if the absentee felt aggrieved and believed that she was deprived of her right to cast vote, she had the liberty to file an election petition.
“As per the mandate contained under Rules 52 and 53 of the Rules of 1994, the polling process can be adjourned only in extreme circumstances where the polling is obstructed or interrupted by riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or natural calamity. The instant case does not fall under any of the above circumstances as described under Rules 52 and 53 of the Rules of 1994.”
Title: Vedprakash v Chittorgarh Central Coop. Bank Ltd. & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the stages of examination, cross-examination, defence evidence or hearing of arguments, as under Rule 16(6)(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (the “Rules”) cannot be avoided merely because the disciplinary authorities considered that documentary or electronic material was sufficient.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur was hearing an appeal against the order of the MD of Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service.
The Court rejected the respondents' argument to the effect that considering the nature of banking transactions, examination of witnesses was not necessary. It was held that such contention could not be accepted to substitute the compliance with procedure, required under Rule 16.
“The Rule does not leave it to the disciplinary authorities to dispense with the stages of examination, cross-examination, defence evidence or hearing of arguments merely because the department considers the documentary or electronic material sufficient. Where the charges are denied, the procedure prescribed by the Rule is required to be followed.”
Title: Mukhya Vyavasthapak, Banswara Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited v Pradeep Singh Rathore & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 408
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the quashing of an order that reduced pay-scale of employees without affording opportunity of hearing, irrespective of the fact that the initial appointments of the concerned employees against regular posts were irregular and reduction of their pay scale was a consequence of restoring their position prior to such irregularity.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing appeals filed against the order of a single judge that had set aside the order passed by the appellant reducing the regular pay-scale of the respondents.
During an audit conducted in 2018, it was revealed that the appointments of respondents against regular posts were irregular. Post this objection raised in the audit, the appellant withdrew the regular pay scale of the respondents and directed them to work on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 12,000 per month. This was challenged before the Court.
Title : Yar Mohammad v Khudabaksh & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 409
While hearing a Motor Accident Claim case, considering that the claimant was a minor, Rajasthan High Court directed the insurance company of the offending vehicle to satisfy the award granted in favour of the claimant, despite the vehicle's owner being in breach of the insurance policy, with a liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali made a reference to Supreme Court cases, to hold that the principle of “pay and recover” was recognized in cases where despite a breach of the policy conditions by the insured, the insurer was directed to pay to the claimant at the first instance, without fastening the ultimate liability on the insurer, and then recover it from the defaulter.
At the same time, the Court observed that established breach relating to the use of the vehicle without a permit authorising carriage of passengers had a direct bearing on the contractual liability of the insurance company.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case in Anu Bhanvara & Ors. v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. in which in case of gratuitous passengers, who were young children travelling in goods vehicle, Supreme Court directed insurance company to satisfy the award in the first instance and granted liberty to recover the same from the vehicle's owner and driver.
Title : Ram Pal Meena v Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 410
The Rajasthan High Court has held that there is no legally sustainable difference between 'honourable acquittal' and 'acquittal' for the purpose of granting service benefits to a suspended employee.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma set aside the orders of the employer-LIC (respondent) as per which the petitioner was denied the service benefits for his time when he was put under suspension owing to being implicated in a criminal case in which he was acquitted, on the ground that his acquittal was not “honourable”.
The Court observed that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 (the “Rules”) did not make any distinction between the honourable acquittal and acquittal for any other reason, and in any event, the presumption of innocence of the employee stood restored upon his acquittal.
Employee Terminated After Acquittal Entitled To Back Wages Till Reinstatement: Rajasthan High Court
Title : Dalbeer Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 411
The Rajasthan High Court has held that when an employee is terminated after being acquitted in a criminal case, s/he would be entitled to back wages for the period between such termination and reinstatement.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K Agarwal and Justice Inderjeet Singh observed that even though subsequent acquittal did not retrospectively erase legal consequences of earlier conviction, a termination effected after acquittal could not attract this principle.
Title: Rashtriya Loktanrik Party v State Election Commission, Rajasthan, and Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 412
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to interfere with the administrative issue concerning the appointment of a Superintendent of Police (SP), Nagaur, from the Rajasthan Police Service (RPS) cadre instead of the Indian Police Service (IPS) cadre.
A division bench comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Rashtriya Loktantrik Party, challenging the appointment of an RPS officer as SP, Nagaur, instead of an officer from the IPS cadre. The petition sought directions to the State Election Commission, Rajasthan, to consider and decide a fresh representation made by the party regarding the issue.
The petitioner's case was that in view of the upcoming municipal and panchayat elections, appointment of a regular SP was required, as assigning the charge to an Additional SP belonging to the State cadre could potentially affect the integrity of the electoral process.
Title : Balavant Singh v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 413
The Rajasthan High Court has held that taunts for not having a male child or threats of marrying another woman, do not amount to instigation or intentional aid, to constitute the prima facie material to attract the offence of abatement of suicide under Section 108, BNS.
The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit was hearing a bail application of a husband, whose wife had committed suicide, and he, along with his parents was implicated for the offence of abetement to suicide, based on a complaint filed by the father of the deceased.
Rajasthan High Court Directs State To File Measures For Management, Control Of 3,000 Madarsas
Title : Pratipal Singh v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State Government to place on record the measures that can be taken for the effective management, control, and operation of approximately 3,000 Madarsas functioning across the State.
While listing the matter for October 27, 2026, the Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma observed:
"Mr. B.L. Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General, in these circumstances, is directed to file a detailed affidavit suggesting effective steps, which can be taken for effective management, control and operation of the Madarsas in the State of Rajasthan. He is further directed to take into consideration the suggestions given by the petitioner for improving the situation of the Madarsas operating in the State of Rajasthan".