Rajasthan High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 124Orders/Judgments of the MonthJanuary 2025Rajasthan HC Cancels Air Force Personnel's Anticipatory Bail Due To Misrepresentation, Hiding True Facts Like Grievous Injury Caused to VictimTitle: Ramesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 1The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail of an Air Force personnel on the grounds that he allegedly misrepresented and hid material true facts when he argued his anticipatory bail which was eventually granted last year.Justice Farjand Ali observed that during the proceedings of anticipatory bail, the counsel appearing for the accused had only mentioned the charges of hurt (Section 323) and endangering human life (Section 336) while hiding the charge of grievous hurt which was added on account of the victim permanently losing vision in his left eye due to the injury caused by the accused.Not Issuing Provisional Answer Key Or Inviting Objections During Recruitment Process Violates Fundamental Rights Of Candidates: Rajasthan HCTitle: Narpat Surela v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitionsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 2Rajasthan High Court has ruled that not following the procedure like issuance of model answer key, inviting objections, constitution of committee of experts and issuance of final answer key in the recruitment process for government posts, renders the process non-transparent and violates the fundamental rights of the aspirants under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.The bench of Justice Sameer Jain thus directed the State and its authorities including the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Rajasthan Staff Selection Board to undertake the recruitment process in strict adherence to the law and the Supreme Court's decision in Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab and Haryana High Court & Ors., and prepare a fresh merit list within 2 months.Claim Bill/Voucher Not Akin To Notice Under Carriage By Road Act Which Is A Precondition For Instituting Legal Proceedings: Rajasthan HCTitle: Amrit Transport Company v Oriental Insurance Company & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 3The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a claim bill (voucher) cannot be equated to a notice required under Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, as per which legal proceedings cannot be initiated against a common carrier unless a notice in writing was served on them.The court also observed that under Section 16 the Carriage by Road Act provides that before institution of suit or legal proceedings, it is necessary to serve a notice of demand in writing. Thus, a suit or proceeding can be instituted, only after such notice, the court opined.Magistrate Must Show Disagreement With Police's Negative Final Report While Taking Cognizance Of Offence On A Protest Plea: Rajasthan HCTitle: Nopa Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 4While setting aside a decision of the trial court taking cognizance of offences including rioting in a protest plea, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that it was settled law that while taking cognizance of offence on a protest petition the Magistrate should demonstrate his "disagreement with the police report".Justice Farjand Ali held that a definite opinion was required to be made or at least grounds of final report had to be considered by the magistrate before proceeding further.Rajasthan Tenancy Act | Land Recorded As “For Mining Purposes” In Revenue Records Cannot Be Used For Agricultural Purposes: High CourtTitle: M/s S.A.S R.K. Marble Udhyog v Shree Pustimargiya & Ors., and other connected petitionsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 5Rajasthan High Court has ruled that since mining could not be termed as an agricultural activity under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”), the land used for mining operations could not be termed as a land used for agricultural purposes especially when in the revenue records the nature of the land was recorded as “for mining purposes”.After hearing the counsels, the Court perused Section 5(24) and Section 5(2) of the Act that defined “Land” and “Agriculture” respectively, and held that the conjoint reading of these reflected that the mining could not be termed as an agricultural activity and the land used for mining operations could not be termed as a land used for agricultural purposes.Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Termination Of Govt Employee For Appearing As Dummy Candidate In Exam, Says Charge Wasn't Included In Charge-SheetTitle: Dinesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 6Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of a District Education Officer wherein the services of a Junior Assistant (Clerk Grade-II) (“Petitioner”) were terminated based on the fact that the ground on which the Petitioner was terminated was not appearing either in the charge sheet or in the inquiry report.The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta held that,“In ...

Rajasthan High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2025

Nupur Agrawal

Tags