NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 254 - 263]Union of India & Ors. v Sqn. Ldr. Deepak Sandhu; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 254Virendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 255Ratti Ram v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 256Shravan Lal Khorwal v State of RajasthanDevendra Gehlot v Vaibhav Singh Bhati & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 257Amrita Meena v the State of Rajasthan...
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 254 - 263]
Union of India & Ors. v Sqn. Ldr. Deepak Sandhu; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 254
Virendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 255
Ratti Ram v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 256
Shravan Lal Khorwal v State of Rajasthan
Devendra Gehlot v Vaibhav Singh Bhati & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
Amrita Meena v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 258
Maksood & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 259
M/s Sanskar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 260
Roha Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 261
Jaipal Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 262
C v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 263
Order/Judgments of the Week
Mere Imposition Of Fine Under Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance Not 'Moral Turpitude' To Deny Appointment: High Court
Title: Virendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 255
The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that imposition of fine for an offence under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) does not amount to moral turpitude based on which a candidate could be denying public employment.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur held that where a candidate was convicted, decision to deny public employment could not be taken mechanically. Rather, the appointing authority is obligated to examine such cases to see whether the offences for which the candidate was convicted involved moral turpitude or violence.
Rajasthan High Court Orders 46 Years' Disability Pension Arrears To Ex-Air Force Corporal, Says Benefit Can't Be Denied Due To State Inaction
Title: Ratti Ram v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 256
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to an Ex-Corporal of the Indian Air Force whose disability pension was discontinued in 1980 owing to pending re-assessment of his disability.
Even after the disability was assessed to be in continuation, the Armed Forces Tribunal directed payment of arrears only since 2019, instead of calculating it from the date of discontinuity.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Nupur Bhati highlighted that no reason was assigned by the Tribunal to resume the disability pension from a random date in 2019.
“The petitioner, an ex-serviceman now aged 79 years, has been suffering from Bronchial Asthma since his days of active service to the nation. He has been deprived of his rightful disability pension for over four decades through no fault of his own. The purpose of disability pension is to provide sustenance and recognition to those who have suffered in the course of serving the nation. Any interpretation that defeats this purpose must be eschewed.”
Rajasthan High Court Orders Inquiry Into Alleged Record Manipulation At Service Tribunal
Title: Shravan Lal Khorwal v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court in an April 17 order, directed inquiry into a service tribunal over alleged record manipulation.
This, after Justice Ravi Chirania was dissatisfied with the Registrar's explanation who had tried to "shift the burden" on a clerk.
"This Court finds this justification highly unreasonable and false on the face of the record. The concerned clerk who committed this mistake has not been named in the affidavit, therefore, the justification does not appears to be correct and satisfactory," the bench observed.
The petitioner contended that in an open court, the Tribunal had issued notices and stayed the impugned order. However, no certified copy of the order was made available. Further, instead of recording the stay order in the case file, a completely different order of a later date, that was never listed before the Tribunal, was recorded as per which the stay was declined.
National Interest Prevail Over Individual Convenience: Rajasthan High Court Upholds IAF Officer's Transfer Despite Parents' Medical Hardship
Title: Union of India & Ors. v Sqn. Ldr. Deepak Sandhu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 254
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the transfer of a Squadron Leader, Indian Air Force who had challenged the same owing to critical medical condition of his parents.
The Court opined that humane considerations, towards the compassionate circumstances, alone could not override the paramount considerations of organizational discipline, operational preparedness, and service requirements of Armed Forces.
“Though compassionate circumstances may certainly constitute a relevant factor for consideration while examining the legality or fairness of a transfer order, such considerations cannot be treated as a sine qua non for judicial interference, particularly in matters concerning the Armed Forces where national interest, strategic deployment and administrative exigencies must necessarily receive primacy over individual convenience.”
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati further opined that Policy for Posting of Officer did not possess any binding statutory force that created any enforceable legal mandate. Rather, it was merely administrative guideline intended at regulating internal governance and operational management.
Interim Orders Shouldn't Inflict Disproportionate Hardship: Rajasthan High Court Allows Relocated Liquor Vend To Operate Pending Dispute
Title: Devendra Gehlot v Vaibhav Singh Bhati & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that interim orders are meant to preserve equities between parties and should not inflict disproportionate hardship pending adjudication of a dispute.
Making the observation, a Division Bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal permitted a liquor shop licensee to continue operating from a relocated site approved by the Excise Department, noting that the relocation was within the same excise cluster and that the subsistence of an ad-interim stay was causing recurring financial prejudice to the licensee.
“…interim orders are intended to preserve equities between the parties and should not, unless compelling circumstances so warrant, inflict disproportionate hardship upon one side pending adjudication of the substantive dispute. At the same time, the Court is equally mindful that any interim arrangement fashioned by an appellate forum should not have the effect of rendering the pending proceedings before the learned Single Judge infructuous or prejudging the issues involved therein.”
Ward Delimitation Must Be Based On Population, Not Number Of Voters: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Amrita Meena v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 258
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a challenge against the formation of wards in the upcoming elections of Municipal Body, opining that the determining factor for formation of wards is not the number of voters but population.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta opined that the entire writ was misleading and based on an erroneous presumption that wards were determined based on the number of voters.
The Court referred to Section 9 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, and highlighted that the provision which laid down mechanism for division of Municipality into wards, did not use the word “voters” but “population”.
Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Cyber Fraud Accused Subject To Disclosure Of Crypto Holdings, Digital Wallets
Title: Maksood & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 259
While granting bail in a cyber-fraud case, Rajasthan High Court prohibited the applicants from obtaining/using any new SIM, phone; opening new bank account; or creating any social medial account, domain name or website without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania further directed the accused persons against using any VPN, TOR Browser, Proxy Server or any other form of anonymous network or identity masking technology.
Apart from the above, the Court also sought an affidavit from the accused persons, with details that included,
- Movable and immovable assets, including land, vehicles, bank accounts, digital wallets, Cyptocurrency holdings, allegedly used in commission of offence;
- All electronic devices in their possession including hard disks and pen drives with their IMEI numbers;
- All social medial accounts, email accounts, domain registrations, websites and online platforms operated or used by the accused persons.
Rajasthan High Court Criticizes State For Forming Panel To Examine Land Dispute Despite Final Adjudication By Revenue Court In 1978
Title: M/s Sanskar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 260
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of a single judge that relied upon the report of a fact-finding Commission that was constituted by the State Government despite the fact that the concerned matter had already attained finality in 1978, opining such reliance to be erroneous.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bipin Gupta further slammed the government for the act of constituting the concerned commission, and observed that once the concerned matter was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, the commission had no capacity to examine the case.
“…we do not find as to under what capacity, the Beri Commission was examining the case of State of Rajasthan (supra), which stood already dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Neither the Beri Commission was formed by any direction of the High Court, nor it could have examined a judgment passed by the Board of Revenue where the application of the State had been rejected on the ground of limitation…Beri Commission has acted as an adjudicating authority without there being any such direction issued by any Court.”
SARFAESI Act | Rajasthan High Court Orders Police To Restore Bank's Possession Of Mortgaged Property Allegedly Reoccupied By Borrowers
Title: Roha Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 261
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the local Police to immediately take appropriate steps to restore possession of a mortgaged property to a bank, after it alleged that the borrowers had forcibly reoccupied the property despite it having been taken over under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.
Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that failure to restore possession in such circumstances would amount to a "clear case of defiance of law" and directed the police to act within 15 days.
“…if petitioner – bank is not allowed to take possession of said property, it will amount to clear case of defiance of law and, therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara and SHO, Kotdi, District Bhilwara are under an obligation to act in consonance with the provisions of law for restoring the possession of petitioner given that the petitioner has already approached them.”
Rajasthan High Court Orders Release Of Ex-Serviceman's Licensed Rifle, Says Continued Seizure May Affect Livelihood
Title: Jaipal Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 262
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the release of a licensed 12-bore rifle to the Ex-servicemen-petitioner, opining that since the petitioner was now a security guard, the rifle constituted an important tool connected with his source of livelihood.
Depriving him of its custody would adversely impact his ability to effectively discharge his professional responsibilities, it added.
“Merely lodging of one FIR cannot by itself constitute a valid ground to presume that petitioner will indulge in any criminal activity involving the use of rifle in question, more particularly, when no other criminal antecedent has been reported against the revisionist.”
The Court further held that since the trial would take considerable time, there was a possibility of the rifle suffering deterioration. It was held that valuable property shall not ordinarily be permitted to remain in police custody for an indefinite period, especially when proper documentation and identification particulars of the article could be safeguarded as evidence.
S.311 CrPC Meant To Elicit Truth, Not Favour Either Side: Rajasthan High Court Allows Summoning Of Prosecutrix's School Record In POCSO Case
Title: C v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 263
While allowing an application under Section 311 CrPC at the "fag end" of a POCSO trial, the Rajasthan High Court held that the purpose of the provision is not to favour or disfavour the prosecution or the accused, but to naturally unravel the truth to exercise just decision in a case.
Section 311 CrPC empowered the courts to summon, recall, or re-examine any witness or any material, at any stage of an inquiry or trial.