LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 29 - July 05, 2026

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 IndiaVivekanand Vidya Ashram Sansthan v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitionsVinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266M/s Shyam and Shyam Oil Mills Private Limited v Gnet Impex Private Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 267Rajiv Pratap Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.Suo Motu v State of RajasthanRoopraj Prajapat v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.Order/Judgments of the WeekRajasthan High Court Fines State ₹15,000 For Denying Fifth-Pay Commission Benefits To Ex-Air Force Personnel Despite SC OrderTitle: Union of India & Ors. v No. 610812A Ex MWO Prabhu Singh ShekhawatCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 264Rajasthan 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.Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Void MLA's Election Over Alleged Defects In Asset Disclosure But Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs For Evading SummonsTitle: Purshottam Lal v Ritu Banawat & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 265The 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.'Public Purpose Can't Justify Altering Character Of River Land': Rajasthan High Court Questions State For Planning Road On Seasonal RiverbedTitle: 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 IndiaWhile 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...

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 29 - July 05, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 29 - July 05, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers