Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: January 17 to January 23, 2022

Judgments/ Orders of the Week Writ Petition Filed In Representative Capacity Without Proper Authorization Not Maintainable: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Income- Tax Contigent Employees Union and Anr. v. Union Of India and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 16 The Rajasthan High Court has held that a writ petition filed in representative capacity without proper authorization or resolution is not maintainable. A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, observed, "We are of the firm view that the writ petition has been filed without proper authorization/resolution and hence, the same is not maintainable." In furtherance, the court dismissed the writ petition purportedly filed on behalf of Income Tax Contingent Employees Union as not maintainable, in the absence of proper authorization. Power of Judicial Review Under Article 226 Is Basic Feature of Constitution; Can't Be Curtailed By Any Legislation: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: LNJ Power Ventures Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 17 The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that power of judicial review vested in High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is one of the basic features of the Constitution and any legislation cannot override or curtail such jurisdiction. Justice Pushpendra Bhati further held that High Courts, while exercising the power under Article 226, would take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. Land Reserved For Public Park Not To Be Used For Commercial Purposes Like Marriages/ Parties: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Suresh Thanvi v. State Of Rajasthan and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 18 The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that land reserved for the public park in question shall not be allowed for commercial purposes like marriages/ parties etc. The decision was delivered in a public interest litigation filed by one Suresh Thanvi. A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "It is hereby directed that the respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur shall ensure that the land in question shall be strictly used as a public park and no deviation shall be permitted in this regard. No commercial activities viz. marriages/ parties, etc. shall be allowed thereupon". 'Parties Are Educated & Aware of Their Rights': Rajasthan High Court Waives 6 Months Cooling Off Period For Divorce By Mutual Consent Case Title: Sheela Dhobi v. Satish Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 19 The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a joint application filed by the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband for waiver of six months cooling off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce by mutual consent. Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed, " In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the parties are sufficiently educated and are aware of their rights...as they have mutually decided to end their matrimony finding no hope/chance of reconciliation, I am of the opinion that their application for waiver of the statutory period of six months specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 deserves acceptance." The parties had approached the court after being aggrieved with the order passed by the Family Court, Bhilwara, which on 16 Dec, 2021 dismissed the aforesaid prayer of the parties. Compassionate Appointment - Perception That Married Daughter Not Part of Father's Household But Exclusive of Husband's Household Is Outdated View & Mindset: Rajasthan HC Case Title: Shobha Devi v. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 20 In a significant judgment, the single bench of Rajasthan High Court held that the married daughter of a deceased employee falls within the definition of 'dependents' for compassionate appointment. "The perception of the daughter, after marriage no longer being a part of her father's household and becoming an exclusive part of her husband's household, is an outdated view and mindset."Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, observed. The court observed that any discrimination between unmarried & married daughter and married son & married daughter would be in clear violation of Article 14 ,15 and 16 of the Constitution. Bank's Decision Reducing Retirement Age Illogical; Affected Employees Entitled to Salary For Out of Service Period: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Kailash Chandra Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 21 The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that the employees of...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: January 17 to January 23, 2022

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags