Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations: 44 - 81]

The digest contains all the important judgments and orders pertaining to Rajasthan for the month of February 2022, covered by LiveLaw. Judgments/ Orders 1. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner Last Authority For Deciding Claim On 'Facts'; Appeal Lies Only On 'Substantial Question Of Law': Rajasthan HC Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Kota v. Shyam @ Jagdish S/o Gopal Lal Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 44 The Rajasthan High Court has held that under the scheme of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the Compensation Commissioner is the last authority to decide any claim on facts. No appeal lies against its order unless a substantial question of law is involved. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand therefore dismissed an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bundi, for not qualifying any substantial question of law under. It observed, " Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed." 2. Demanding Additional Performance Security For Unbalanced Bid Is Arbitrary & Illegal: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside E-Auction Notices Of Water Department Case Title: M/s. Shera Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, with connected matters Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 45 The Rajasthan High Court has set aside e-auction notices issued by the Water Department which demanded additional performance security for unbalanced bids, as arbitrary and illegal. The court directed the respondents-state to permit the petitioners to perform the contract in accordance with law, without insisting upon additional performance security. Justice Dinesh Mehta, ruled, "A look at the provision given in Rule 75 of the Rules of 2013 shows that it provides for performance security only and does not envisage any other security in the name of additional performance security or otherwise. According to this Court, all the terms and conditions of a bid document are supposed to conform to the statutory provisions...The letter of the respondents and corresponding condition in the e-bid document requiring the petitioners to furnish additional performance security are hereby quashed." 3. Can't Interfere With Cut-Off Date In Art 226 Jurisdiction, Unless It Is Fixed For Whimsical Considerations/ In Mala Fide Manner: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Dr. Naveen Jakhar v. State of Rajasthan Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 46 The Rajasthan High Court has observed that that the writ Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, may not interfere in every decision that is taken on the administrative side and fixing of a cut-off date, will be out of purview of a writ Court until the same is either fixed by keeping in mind the whimsical considerations or fixed in a mala fide manner Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur ruled, "This Court finds that the writ Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, may not interfere in every decision that is taken on the administrative side and fixing of a cut-off date, will be out of purview of a writ Court until the same is either fixed by keeping in mind the whimsical considerations or fixed in a malafide manner." The court observed that State Government has found that rendering of service in remote, difficult and rural areas entitles a person to certain incentive/bonus marks, then the decision of the State Government, in its wisdom and as a matter of policy, to confer such benefit upto a particular date cannot be termed as whimsical or malafide. 4. SC/ ST/ OBC Females From Outside Rajasthan Not Entitled To Reservation In Public Employment In State On Migration After Marriage: High Court Case Title: Sunita Rani v. State of Rajasthan Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 47 The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that females outside the State on migrating to Rajasthan post marriage may not be entitled to the benefit of reservation in public employment in the State, on account of being a member of a SC or ST or OBC in another State. However, they can avail of other benefits as being an member of a reserved category, if the scheme envisages domicile or residence as entitlement. The observation was made in a writ petition filed by one Sunita Rani, being aggrieved with the action of the respondents- Sub Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar of Hanumangarh for not accepting her application for issuance of a caste certificate in her favour declaring that she is a member of Scheduled Caste (SC). Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled, "So it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled for reservation in public employment in the State of Rajasthan being the resident of State of Punjab, however, she can get the other benefits as being an SC on...

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations: 44 - 81]

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags