- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Rajasthan High Court Monthly...
Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations: 176 - 202]
ANIRUDH VIJAY
3 July 2022 8:50 AM GMT
![Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations: 176 - 202]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408686-rajasthan-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations: 176 - 202]")
Nominal Index Amit Swami & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 176 General Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur & Anr. v. Sonu & Anr. with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 177 Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 178 Rajendra Kumar...
Nominal Index
Amit Swami & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
General Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur & Anr. v. Sonu & Anr. with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
Rajendra Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 179
Navneet Singh Purohit v. Law Prep Tutorial, Through Proprietor Shri Sagar Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 180
Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL versus Ajmer Smart City Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
Hemant Nahta v. The Honble Speaker, Rajasthan Assembly & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
Geetanjali Medical College And Hospital v. The Union of India with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
Bhim Saini @ Bhimraj Saini v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
Raju @ Rajkumar Through His Brother Sh. Sharwarmal v. State & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
Sarvjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
Richa Dharu v. Hemant Panwar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
Smt Kamla v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. .v. Sharda 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
Manisha Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
Bhavin Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
Bheru Lal v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
Chitrank Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
Bhan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
Victim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
Gopi Kishan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp with connected matter 197
Pradeep Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur 198
Pooja Gurjar & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 199
Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. Staff Selection Board, Jaipur & Ors. 200
Puneet Mohnot v. State Of Rajasthan 201
Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur 202
Judgments/ Orders of the Month
Case Title: Amit Swami & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
The Rajasthan High Court has recently directed the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board to re-examine certain disputed questions pertaining to recruitment exam for the post of Patwari, from different experts.
The Court ordered that based on the conclusion of such experts, the Board shall amend the final answer key and give effect to the marks obtained by the candidates and other consequential changes in the result.
The competitive written examination was held in four shifts and the final answer key was issued by the Board on 25.01.2022 on the basis of the decision taken by the Expert Committee on the objections raised by the candidates. Additionally, a list of provisionally selected candidates was issued for the purpose of verification of documents and credentials of the candidates.
Case Title: General Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur & Anr. v. Sonu & Anr. with other connected matters
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State government to evolve a mechanism to ensure affixing of reflectors on all types of Animal Carts, Tractor Trolleys and similar types of rides on road. The Court also directed to ensure that the persons, who ride on roads without adopting proper safety measures, so as to endanger the life and safety of other persons, be dealt strictly under the provisions of relevant penal laws.
Justice Rameshwar Vyas observed,
"Before parting with the judgment with the intent to save several human lives from road accidents this Court deems it fit to direct the State Government to evolve mechanism so as to ensure affixing of reflectors on all types of Animal Carts, Tractor Trolleys and similar types of rides on road."
Case Title: Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
The Principal bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has recently imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakh on a medical institution for filing a writ petition, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn at Jaipur Bench on 26.04.2022. The present petition at the Principal Seat was filed on the very next day i.e. on 27.04.2022, without disclosing the facts of the former petition.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while dismissing the petition, observed,
"Now-a-days, the practice of bench hunting is often noticed, however, it is least expected from the institute providing education for the higher courses to the students to involve in such practice. It is a very sorry state of affairs and the conduct of the petitioner– institution is highly condemnable and contemptuous too. It is not expected from any person approaching the Court to conceal the relevant facts and to make an attempt of mislead the Court."
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 179
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on the Income Tax department as the action of recovery was without jurisdiction.
The division bench of Justice Prakash Gupta and Justice Sameer Jain has directed the Assessing Officer to issue a refund to the assessee along with interest as specified in law. The department was directed to adjust an excess of 20% of the disputed demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 within a period of thirty days.
The petitioner/assessee contended that in terms of the order under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, the appeal was preferred by him immediately and as per the provisions of Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee cannot be termed as an assessee in default.
The petitioner contended that the recovery can only be initiated as per the statutory mechanism and that too by a Tax Recovery Officer as mandatory under Section 223 of the Income Tax Act. The refund was established on its own, disregarding departmental circulars, settled legal positions, natural justice principles, statutory mandates, and the provisions of Section 245 of the Income Tax Act.The department's act was arrogant and autocratic, lacking legal authority.
Case Title: Navneet Singh Purohit v. Law Prep Tutorial, Through Proprietor Shri Sagar Joshi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 180
A vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has disposed of an appeal filed by CLAT Mentor Navneet Singh Purohit, challenging an ex-parte order of the Trial court imposing teaching restrictions on him, in a civil suit filed by Law Prep Tutorials.
The Trial court had issued a temporary injunction against Navneet Singh, restraining him from running any business/ venture/ teaching service in relation to Law Entrance examination for a period of 2 years in Jaipur and Jodhpur districts, from the alleged date of expiry of the Franchisee Agreement i.e., 02.02.2022.
While disposing of his appeal, the High Court observed that the aforesaid restriction shall only apply qua material, premises, name and anything reflecting "Law Prep". The Court added that this order shall operate till the Trial court makes any fresh orders in accordance with law.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed,
" It is needless to say that the restriction of teaching imposed upon the appellant shall only be pertaining to the material, premises, name and anything reflecting "Law Prep". This order shall operate till the learned trial court makes any fresh orders in accordance with law."
Case Title: Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL versus Ajmer Smart City Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the arbitral award cannot be remitted back to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) if there are no findings recorded in the arbitral award on the contentious issues.
The Single Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur reiterated that discretionary powers under Section 34 (4) of the A&C Act cannot be exercised under the guise of additional reasons or for filling up the gaps in the reasoning. The Court held that in the absence of any findings on the contentious issues in the award, no amount of reasons can cure the defect in the award.
An arbitral award was challenged by the respondent/ award debtor Ajmer Smart City Limited by filing an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the Commercial Court. The petitioner/award holder Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria filed an application under Section 34 (4) of the A&C Act before the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court passed an order dismissing the application of the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court.
Case Title: Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL versus Ajmer Smart City Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the arbitral award cannot be remitted back to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) if there are no findings recorded in the arbitral award on the contentious issues.
The Single Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur reiterated that discretionary powers under Section 34 (4) of the A&C Act cannot be exercised under the guise of additional reasons or for filling up the gaps in the reasoning. The Court held that in the absence of any findings on the contentious issues in the award, no amount of reasons can cure the defect in the award.
An arbitral award was challenged by the respondent/ award debtor Ajmer Smart City Limited by filing an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the Commercial Court. The petitioner/award holder Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria filed an application under Section 34 (4) of the A&C Act before the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court passed an order dismissing the application of the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court.
Case Title: Hemant Nahta v. The Honble Speaker, Rajasthan Assembly & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
The vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court today dismissed an application which sought interim stay on declaration of results of Rajya Sabha Elections till the disposal of writ petitions pertaining to disqualification of the six Rajasthan MLAs who originally were elected as Members of Bahujan Samaj Party and were later on considered as Members of the Indian National Congress.
Notably, the Rajya Sabha election is scheduled to take place tomorrow.
The order passed by the Speaker was challenged by Bahujan Samaj Party and Madan Dilawar, a sitting MLA of Bharatiya Janta Party and their petitions were disposed of by the Single Judge on 24.08.2020. The petitioner informed the court that the challenge against the single Judge's order has been pending before the Apex Court and no interim order has been passed by the Apex Court.
Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Uma Shankar Vyas, while dismissing the application, observed,
"In the present PIL filed by the petitioner, even notices have not been issued to the other side. It is also evident that during the pendency of the present PIL, elections to the Rajya Sabha were held and Members were elected to the Rajya Sabha. Petitioner at that time also did not press for any interim relief. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the present application for interim relief as the election process has already been commenced and election is scheduled to take place tomorrow."
Case Title: Geetanjali Medical College And Hospital v. The Union of India with other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has observed that Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) has jurisdiction to issue directions for stoppage of admissions but prima facie, it lacks the authority to issue cancellation of admission.
Essentially, a batch of writ petitions were filed by medical colleges and its students, challenging the recommendations made by MARB for withdrawal of letter of permission, cancellation of admission in undergraduate and postgraduate courses for the academic year 2021-22 in the petitioner-institutions.
On 28.04.2022, the court had passed an interim order protecting the admissions already granted to the students in various undergraduate or postgraduate courses in the petitioner institutions for the academic session 2021-22.
Case Title: Bhim Saini @ Bhimraj Saini v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
The Rajasthan High Court on Friday denied bail to two accused, including the girl's brother, in a case 'having a strong trait of honour killing'.
Essentially, the deceased-Azad and the accused petitioner-Bhim Saini's sister were in a relationship. As the girl's family was not pleased with the same, therefore, the couple eloped. They were later apprehended by the police and the girl was made to accompany the petitioner-side. The deceased filed a habeas corpus petition following which, the parties attempted to settle the matter through compromise and accordingly, the deceased withdrew the petition. In a close proximity of time, the boy went missing and after four days his dead body was found lying in a pond tied with the heavy iron material.
Justice Farjand Ali, while dismissing the bail application of the two accused, observed,
"Needless, to observe that every citizen of this country is abided and governed by rule of Law and one has to follow it as no one is above the Law, as in fact no one can. Every citizen is principally embodied to access their fundamental right and legal right peacefully and if it is being hindered by any one, the rule of law and the procedure established by law is there for its recourse, but no citizen is allowed to take the course of law in its own hands, strictly not."
Case Title: Raju @ Rajkumar Through His Brother Sh. Sharwarmal v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
The Rajasthan High Court has recently directed the State to release a convict, belonging to Below Poverty Line (B.P.L.) family, on parole of 7 days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and one sound and solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, the court waived the requirement of the petitioner's brother furnishing surety bond.
Essentially, the petitioner was granted parole of 7 days under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 on 29.09.2021 with the requirement of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (out of which one was to be of the petitioner's brother Sharwarmal).
The petitioner had moved the High Court with an assertion that he may be released on furnishing personal bond only as he is a poor man belonging to the B.P.L. family.
Case Title: Sarvjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
While hearing a matter pertaining to maintenance, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the husband, who is a welder, is almost like a skilled workman, and thus, it cannot be presumed that he is not earning sufficiently to maintain the petitioner-wife.
The court also opined that even if the petitioner-wife is stitching clothes domestically and has some income source, then also the husband is liable to pay maintenance to the wife along with her two children.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while allowing the criminal revision petition, observed,
"This Court, after hearing the submissions and analyzing the record of the case, is of the firm opinion that even if the petitioner-wife is stitching clothes domestically then also she is entitled to get the maintenance. The respondent No.2-husband is a welder, which is almost like a skilled workman, and thus, it cannot be presumed that he is not earning sufficiently to maintain the petitioner-wife, even if the petitioner-wife has some income source, then also there are three family members whom the respondent No.2-husband is liable to maintain. In the given circumstances, it is a fit case for grant of maintenance to the petitioner-wife."
Case Title: Richa Dharu v. Hemant Panwar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a lady suffering from cruelty on account of her husband's conduct cannot be said to have deserted him or to be voluntarily residing away. The court added that the circumstances created by the husband, if not conducive, are bound to push away the wife.
Essentially, the case of the petitioner-wife is that respondent-husband is working on the post of Branch Manager in Bank of Baroda and is earning income of Rs.90,000/- per month. She submitted that the trial court has denied the monthly maintenance to her only on the ground that the divorce has been allowed between the parties. As per her, the divorce was ex-parte claimed by the respondent.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that in the present times, when the education itself is very costly and the daily life requires a respectable amount, the denial of maintenance to the wife and the daughter cannot be justified.
The petitioner was thus directed to pay Rs. 15,000 per month maintenance to them.
The Petitioner had filed the present criminal review petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 and 401 CrPC against the Family Court's order against an order which allowed the wife's application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance.
Case Title: Smt Kamla v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the condition imposed by the Income Tax Act that a person residing in India for a continuous period of 180 days would be considered to be a resident of India, is for the purpose of bringing such person within the purview of the Income Tax Act.
The court added that the definition is simply designed for the purpose of including the persons who are in India for a period of 180 days to bring in the tax net and not for the purpose of determining the citizenship or for deciding the permanent resident status of such person.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while dismissing an appeal, observed,
"We are prima facie of the view that there is no reason to accept the assertion of the appellant that the respondent was not a resident of India by applying the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 because, both the acts have a different object and purposes. The condition imposed by the Income Tax Act that a person residing in India for a continuous period of 180 days would be considered to be a resident of India, is for the purpose of bringing such person in the purview of the Income Tax Act. The definition is simply designed for the purpose of including the persons who are in India for a period of 180 days to bring in the tax net and not for the purpose of determining the citizenship or for deciding the permanent resident status of such person."
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. .v. Sharda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that remarrying of the deceased's wife does not disentitle her from claiming compensation for death of her husband under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The court added that the amount of compensation awarded by the trial court looking at the young age of the deceased and number of claimants cannot be said to be unreasonable.
Justice Rameshwar Vyas, while dismissing the first appeal preferred by the Insurance Company observed,
"Contention with regard to remarrying of the deceased's wife is concerned, the same does not disentitle her from claiming compensation for death of her husband. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial court looking to the young age of the deceased and number of claimants cannot be said to be unreasonable. There is no merit in this appeal."
Case Title: Manisha Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
The Rajasthan High Court has directed a woman, who was married off while a minor and now wishes to part her ways, to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (Rural) for appropriate security.
Notably, the woman has approached the court with the grievance that her parents are pressuring her to live with the person with whom her marriage was solemnised while she was a child. She argued that such marriage was illegal, as she was not of marriageable age at the relevant time.
Moreover, the woman informed the court that though she wants to pursue her studies, her family members would get her arrested or forcefully take her to her village and restrict her movement due to which she would be unable to complete her studies.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed,
"Having regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that her parents and family members will intrude in her life and liberty, instant petition is being disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (Rural) for appropriate security so as to enable her to take up her examinations at Jaipur which are going to be scheduled from 11.06.2022 to 06.07.2022."
Case Title: Bhavin Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the courts should not rush to issue standing warrants and initiate proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code, unless they are satisfied that the accused is intentionally evading or circumventing the warrants in order to avoid the prosecution.
Under Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 82 deals with the proclamation for person absconding, while section 83 talks about attachment of property of person absconding.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, while allowing the petition and setting aside the trial court's order, observed,
"In the opinion of this Court, endeavor of a Court should be to ensure proper compliance of the statutory provisions and service of the summons as mandated by law. Service of summons is a bed-rock of principles of natural justice. The Courts should not rush to issue standing warrant and initiating proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code, unless they are satisfied that the accused is intentionally evading or circumventing the warrants in order to avoid the prosecution."
Case Title: Bheru Lal v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that pendency or not pendency of a revision petition is not a ground for a party to avert cross-examination before the trial court.
The clarification was made by Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati in the plea moved by one Bheru Lal in connection with a case under Income Tax Act, stating that his right to cross examination was closed. He sought one more opportunity for cross-examination on cost.
The respondent's counsel vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that number of opportunities were given to the petitioner to make the necessary cross-examination but he has failed to do and has been making excuses before the trial court regarding the pendency of the revision petition and thus the delaying in whole proceeding.
However, the court, in the interest of justice, granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to complete the necessary cross-examination on the next date already fixed by the trial court.
Case Title: Chitrank Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
The Rajasthan High Court has granted protection to a lawyer and his family members, whose house was pelted with stones, allegedly at the instructions of person confined in jail.
The court has directed the police authorities to extend necessary protection by deploying police personnel at petitioner-lawyer's house and also instruct PCR to have regular visits so that petitioner and his family members may be protected.
Essentially, the case of the petitioner-lawyer is that on the midnight of 14.06.2022, a few persons came in white Renault Tribber Car and threw stones at his house, due to which glass of his car and window at first floor of his house were damaged. The incident was recorded in a CCTV Camera installed at the house of the petitioner-lawyer. Further, the petitioner received a threat call on his Mobile from a person named Mridul. The person claimed himself to be confined in Barrack No.6 of jail and gave a threat of killing the petitioner and disclosed that the incident in the night of 14.06.2022 was committed on his instructions.
Case Title: Bhan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application / renewal of license for firearms is not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out by the party. In this regard, the court pursued Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 which talks about variation, suspension and revocation of licences.
The present petitioner had raised grievance regarding the arms license.
The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days and asked the respective District Magistrate to consider the representation afresh by passing speaking orders, while keeping in mind the existing policy of the State.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi, observed,
"This Court is of the opinion that any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application/ refusal/ renewal of license for firearms is not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out. Looking into the submission made by learned counsel for the parties that it would be suffice if their rights are redetermined by the respondents, while keeping into consideration the judgment rendered in Khem Singh (supra), the same is accepted."
Case Title: Victim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
Case No.: CRLMP/ 4448/ 2022
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a rape survivor to medically terminate 18 weeks pregnancy, stating that the anguish caused by an unwarranted pregnancy arising out of rape may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the victim.
Notably, the petitioner-victim had also lodged an FIR at Police Station Kaman, Bharatpur for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 376D of the Indian Penal Code. The present petition was filed seeking directions to terminate her unwarranted pregnancy as she no longer intends to continue with the same.
On 31.05.2022, a coordinate bench of the court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur to ensure that the victim girl be medically examined by the Medical Board comprising of expert doctors of the field to opine about the status of the pregnancy of the petitioner as well as whether termination of pregnancy of the petitioner is feasible or not.
A vacation bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal, while allowing the petition, observed,
"The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bharatpur is directed to constitute a team of Gynaecologist, who after obtaining the consent of the victim in writing and looking to the advanced stage and the physician health of the victim girl, to get the pregnancy terminated at the earliest, if medically possible."
Case Title: Gopi Kishan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp with connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 197
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that if any legal advice rendered by an Advocate goes wrong, the same would not subject him to criminal prosecution, as a lawyer. At most, he may be held liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, if it is established by placing cogent evidence on record.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed,
" If any legal advice rendered by an Advocate goes wrong, the same would not subject him to criminal prosecution, as a lawyer. As observed above, an Advocate, at the most, may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, if it is established by placing a cogent evidence on record, but an Advocate cannot be charged for the offences, as alleged herein, alongwith other conspirators."
The Bench was of the view that if an Advocate is prosecuted merely for rendering a legal advice/opinion, it shall not be possible for any lawyer to render such professional advice, more particularly, when such a professional advice, if found to be non favourable for the client, the same would result into criminal prosecution against a lawyer, and in such circumstances, the system of justice delivery would suffer, as lawyers being an important component of the justice delivery system would not be able to give their professional advice without fear and favour.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
While hearing a PIL for removal of statue of Shri Babasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar allegedly causing obstruction, the Rajasthan High Court recently observed that the placement of the statue and free flow of the traffic both are matters, which can be looked into by the authorities and not by the court.
The court opined that the petitioners have chosen only a particular spot in the city rather than coming out with general prayer for removal of unauthorised statues in the city. The court remarked that the petition appears to be only for personal interest, not for public interest.
Further, the court directed the Local Body concerned to decide the issue as soon as possible.
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while disposing the petition, observed,
"The Local Body concerned should decide the issue as soon as possible. The placement of the statue and free flow of the traffic both are matters, which can be looked into by the authorities and not by the Court. In view of above, we direct the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Jaipur to examine the whole matter afresh after going through the material on record and take appropriate decision in accordance with law as early as possible."
Case Title: Pooja Gurjar & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 199
While hearing a protection petition filed by a married couple, the vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that if the petitioner's income is more than taxable income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Superintendent of Police after considering the financial aspect may charge appropriate financial charges from them.
Essentially, the petitioners got married on 22.03.2022. However, this marriage was not approved by their relatives and respondents No. 4 to 14 and fearing them, they had filed a petition seeking police protection at their residence and place of work.
The court asked the petitioners to approach the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police and added that it would be the duty of the said authority to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners, for which he may take such suitable measures as found necessary in accordance with law.
Case Title: Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. Staff Selection Board, Jaipur & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
The vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that the High Court cannot direct the authorities as to when and on which date a particular examination is to be conducted.
Essentially, the petitioners alleged that the date of examination for the recruitment to the post of Lab Assistant which is going to be conducted on 28.06.2002 and 29.06.2022 is clashing with certain other examinations. Additionally, the petition sought that the candidates be allowed sufficient time for preparation of the examination because, as per the petitioner, the syllabus for Lab Assistant examination has been amended and in place of the earlier short syllabus, a lengthy syllabus comprising many new topics has been introduced.
The court observed that all the recruitment examinations as well as graduation examinations are not conducted for a single person or a specific group of people. These are the examinations for which an advance time table is prepared by the concerned department and are conducted after months of prior preparation, added the court.
Case Title: Puneet Mohnot v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
The Rajasthan High Court has said that whether or not the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be invoked against a private person is a question that requires consideration.
Observing thus, it granted bail to a Chartered Accountant, who it held is not a public servant, booked under the Act after recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs.
Essentially, the applicant-petitioner was arrested in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan for the offence(s) under Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of IPC. On account of certain reasons, he was allegedly removed from the services of the complainant, who was his client. The applicant-petitioner alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case due to vindictiveness of the complainant.
Case Title: Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
The Rajasthan High Court recently imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on a High Court Advocate for casting serious aspersions on the court, thereby lowering its majesty. The Court also commented on the Advocate's poor command over language, which it said was reflected from the application filed by him.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed,
" These aspersions amount to browbeating and lowering the dignity of the court and are thoroughly contemnous. The petitioner, being an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan is required to act as an officer of the court, but it seems that he has scant respect for the court and total disregard for administration of justice."
The counsel had filed an application seeking review of the judgment rendered in a criminal reference. He was aggrieved by the fact that while deciding the reference, the High Court did not invite inputs from the Bar, subordinate State judiciary.
At the outset, the court opined that the petitioner appears to be peeved by non-inclusion of his name in the array of Advocates, whose presence is noted in the judgment.
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Laxman Singh Bhati v. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board
The Rajasthan High Court has recently ordered the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board to produce the expert committee opinion in relation to the questions of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector Recruitment Exam.
The order was passed on the plea filed by Laxman Singh Bhati, who had appeared for the said exam.
The plea prayed for directions to the respondents to delete two questions of different model papers from the final assessment and subsequently re-calculate marks of the petitioner. The plea also sought direction to the respondents to not delete one question from the final answer key and thereafter award the consequential marks to the petitioner.
The directions to change the answer of two questions were also sought in the plea. Subsequently, the plea prayed that results be revised and accordingly the petitioner be considered for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector according to his merit.
2. Centre Notifies Appointment Of 5 Judges To Patna, Rajasthan & Orissa High Courts
The Central Government has notified the appointments of 5 Judges to Patna, Rajasthan, and Orissa High Courts.
Orissa High Court:
1. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Rajasthan High Court
1. Kuldeep Mathura, Advocate
2. Shubha Mehta, Judicial Officer
Patna High Court
1. Khatim Reza, Advocate
2. Dr. Anshuman, Advocate
3. High Court Seeks Response From "Rajasthan Royals" Over Dues Owed To Police Dept
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State Of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has recently asked franchise cricket team Rajasthan Royals to file a reply explaining its failure to pay over 850 police officials who were deployed during 2011 Indian Premier League (IPL) matches. The dues allegedly add up to approximately 6.99 crores.
The direction was issued on a suo moto case registered in April 2019, on the basis of a newspaper report published in Dainik Bhaskar, revealing that 850 to 980 police officials were deployed, including 18 senior officers belonging to the cadre of Rajasthan Police Services and 52 Inspectors, on the day the IPL match was held. The report stated that an amount of more than 6.99 Crore, due to the police force, has not been paid by the sponsors of IPL who earn huge revenue by holding the matches.
In furtherance, the Court had issued a show cause notice, as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus be not issued directing the Police Department to recover the outstanding amount due from the sponsors and organisers of IPL matches. The Court had also issued notices to the State of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Cricket Association (RCA) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
4. Rajasthan High Court Gets Husband-Wife Duo As Judges
The Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava administered the oath to two new judges, namely Justice Shubha Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur.
The swearing-in ceremony is noteworthy because this is the first time in the history of the Rajasthan High Court that a husband-wife duo will be sitting at the High Court at the same time. Notably, Justice Shubha Mehta is married to Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal, who was elevated to the Bench on November 6, 2019 and has been serving as the Rajasthan High Court judge since then.
The Rajasthan High Court has a total sanctioned strength of 50 Judges, which includes 38 permanent and 12 additional judges. Presently, there exist no additionally appointed judge working in the High Court. With the new appointments, the working strength of the High has now increased to 27
Justice Kuldeep Mathur has been appointed from Advocate's quota while Justice Shubha Mehta has been appointed from Judicial service quota.
Case Title: Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (Abvp) v. The State Of Rajasthan with other connected matters
While reviewing the status report of the court monitored Special Operation Group in the matter pertaining to the paper leak of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher (REET) 2021, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court has recently ordered to investigate the role of D.P. Jaroli, former Chairman of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan (RBSE) and to interrogate him, if necessary.
On perusal of the records, the court observed that the concerned Chairman had engaged all the coordinators which included the disputed coordinators Pradeep Parashar, who is said to be involved in the leakage.
The court noted that presently there is no material except the allegation that Pradeep Parashar's involvement was at the instance of the concerned Chairman. It is submitted before the court that Pradeep Parashar managed to enter into the activity of movement of question papers which were kept in the boxes as the Collector of the concerned District had shared the confidential information with regard to the places where question papers were kept.
Case Title: Gopal Singh Bareth v. State Of Rajasthan
While hearing a public interest litigation seeking to institutionalise effective machinery and mechanism for rescue and post rescue rehabilitation of all child labourers in the State of Rajasthan, a division bench of the High Court has observed that a firm and concrete action plan is required from the state to curb child labour activities in the state.
The present public interest litigation is filed by Advocate Gopal Singh Bareth.
Notably, in compliance with the court's previous order on 17.06.2020, the state has formed a high level committee comprising the Secretary, Department of Labour and the Labour Commissioner as Chairman and Secretary of that committee respectively. Further, detailed directions were also issued in the present matter on 28.09.2020 by the court.
A Sikar based Advocate Hansraj Mawaliya died yesterday after setting himself on fire inside the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's office.
In his suicide note, the advocate has alleged that Sikar's Sub-Divisional Magistrate Rakesh Kumar and Khandela Station House Officer Ghasiram Meena had been harassing him for bribe for every hearing in the court.
It was also alleged in the suicide note that the concerned SHO was threatening him for speaking anything against the SDM Rakesh Kumar.
In pursuant to the above development, the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur has condemned the tragic incident and has raised demands from the State government to suspend and arrest the concerned officers and employees with immediate effect.
8. Rajasthan High Court To Organize Yoga Day Tomorrow; Prime Minister To Deliver Address
The Registrar (Admin) of the Rajasthan High Court has issued a notice informing that the High Court, Jodhpur shall celebrate Yoga Day-2022 on 21st June, 2022 i.e. tomorrow.
The notice states that the main function of observing "Yoga Day" will be organized in front of the Ceremonial Gate of the iconic building of the New High Court at Jhalamand, Jodhpur from 7.00 am to 7.45 am under the guidance of trained Yoga Instructor by collective yoga practice.
In this regard, the Registrar (Admin) has requested all the present and former Judges sitting/ residing at Jodhpur, Officers of the Registry, Advocates and all other Officers/ Officials of the High Court to assemble.
9. Asaram Bapu Rape Case: Rajasthan High Court Seeks Status Of Trial For Similar Offences In Gujarat
Case Title: Asharam @ Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan
While hearing the third application filed by self-styled godman & life convict Asaram Bapu seeking suspension of sentence for rape of a minor, the Rajasthan High Court has sought a status report on the progress of trial pending against the octogenarian for similar offences in Gujarat.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur directed both the Public Prosecutor and Asaram's counsel to apprise the Court of the progress so far.
"Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the appellant shall apprise the Court about the status of the trial which is going on against the accused appellant in the State of Gujarat for similar offences."
This is significant in view of the fact that the High Court had earlier refused his plea for temporary suspension of sentence stating that the same would be futile on account of the cases pending against him in Gujarat.
10. Udaipur Murder : Centre Asks NIA To Take Over Investigation; International Links To Be Probed
The Central Government has directed the National Investigation Agency to take over the investigation of the gruesome murder of a tailor named Kanhaiya Lal Teli at Udaipur yesterday.
"MHA(Ministry of Home Affairs) has directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over the investigation of the brutal murder of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Teli committed at Udaipur, Rajasthan yesterday. The involvement of any organisation and international links will be thoroughly investigated", the Union Home Minister's Office tweeted today morning.
11. Udaipur Killings | National Investigation Authority Re-Registers Case Against Two Accused
The National Investigation Agency of India has re-registered case against accused who conspired, planned and committed the heinous murder of Shri Kanahiya Lal Telli on 28.06.2022 in Udaipur, Rajasthan.
The case has been re-registered under sections 452, 302, 153(A), 153(B), 295(A) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 16, 18 & 20 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 against the accused persons.
The Press Release issued by the National Investigation Authority today, states,
"NIA has re-registered a case RC-27/2022/NIA/DLI on 29/06/2022 under under sections 452, 302, 153(A), 153(B), 295(A) & 34 of IPC and sections 16, 18 & 20 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 against the accused who have conspired, planned and committed the heinous murder of Shri Kanahiya Lal Telli on 28.06.2022 in Udaipur, Rajasthan."
12. Udaipur Murder : Court Remands Accused To 14 Days Judicial Custody
The Udaipur Court has sent the two accused involved in Udaipur's heinous muder of the tailor Kanahiya Lal Telli to 14 days judicial custody.
Kanhaiya Lal had received threats earlier for supporting in social media the remarks made by BJP leader Nupur Sharma on Prophet Muhammed. The assailants took a video of the brutal attack. In a video posted later, the attackers said that they carried out the murder to avenge the insult to Islam.
