Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: August 22 To August 28, 2022

Smt. Rekha Kumari v. Hemendra Choudhary @ Hemraj 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 219

Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 220

State Of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Rekha Kumari and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 221

Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Soni 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 222

Rahul Jain & Ors. v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 223

M/s. Shrimali Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 224

Gram Panchayat, Dujana Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur District Pali, Through Its Sarpanch Smt. Panku Devi v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 225

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

Divorce Application Cannot Be Thrown Out Only Because Exact Date Of Marriage Is Not Mentioned: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Smt. Rekha Kumari v. Hemendra Choudhary @ Hemraj

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 219

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that failure to mention the exact date of marriage in an application for divorce alone cannot be the reason for dismissing such application.

A bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Farzand Ali observed that if the Family Court suspects that the averments on the aspect of marriage are inconclusive, it can exercise powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act to put questions to the parties, so as to verify the truthfulness of the averments made in the application.

Essentially, the instant misc. appeal was filed by the appellant assailing the judgment-cum-decree passed by the Family Court whereby the application preferred by the appellant and respondent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent was dismissed.

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Order Imposing ₹10 Lakh Cost On Medical Institute For "Bench Hunting"

Case Title: Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 220

The Principal Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has upheld the single judge bench order, whereby a cost of Rs. 10 lakh was imposed on a medical institution for forum shopping.

After the petition filed by Dhanwantri Institute of Medical Science was dismissed as withdrawn from the Jaipur bench of the High Court in April, the institute had approached its principal seat the very next day, seeking similar reliefs, without disclosing the factum of the former petition.

In this light, the single judge had dismissed the second writ with 10 lakh cost. Practice of bench hunting has become common these days, the Judge had observed.

Ex-Post Facto Consent Of Panchayati Raj Institutions For Transfer Of Medical & Health Dept Employees Serving With It Valid: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: State Of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Rekha Kumari and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 221

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that ex-post facto consent of Panchayati Raj Institution for transfer of Medical and Health Department employees serving with it is lawful. The sanction is required under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Rules, 2011.

The court was hearing a batch of 91 State-appeals against a single bench order which held that state's decision to itself pass transfer orders without seeking the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department cannot be countenanced.

The basic controversy involved was whether employees, whose parent cadre is Medical and Health Department and whose services have been provided to the Panchayati Raj institution, can be transferred without following procedure laid down under Rule 8.

The said rule stipulates that the department concerned can issue orders for transfer from one district to another district with the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department.

Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Granted Where Bereaved Family Does Not Face "Indigent Circumstances": Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Soni

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 222

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the decision of a bank denying compassionate appointment saying that the deceased's family was not facing "indigent circumstances" warranting employment under the State's scheme of 2014.

PNB had rejected the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment after his father expired while serving as a Head Cashier, on the ground that the family was not facing indigent circumstances.

The instant appeal was preferred against a single bench order reversing the Bank's decision.

The bank contended that the elder son of the deceased employee is employed in TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) with an annual income of ₹6.47 lakhs. The family had received terminal dues to the extent of ₹16.42 lakhs with no financial liability. Apart from this, the family owned two houses and received a family pension to the tune of ₹15,993 per month.

IBPS Can't Refuse To Recommend Names Of Eligible Candidates With Desired Merit To Fill All Notified Vacancies In Banks: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Rahul Jain & Ors. v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 223

The Rajasthan High Court has opined that the recruiting agency-Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) cannot refuse to recommend names of eligible and suitable candidates to fill up all notified vacancies in Banks, if the candidates of desired merit are available.

Any delay occasioned in filling up the notified vacancies may render many eligible candidates ineligible to participate in the next recruitment process, added the court.

Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur, observed,

"The Recruiting Agency cannot deny allotment of eligible candidates to participating RRBs (Regional Rural Banks) arbitrarily especially when sufficient number of candidates are available with it. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce."

Description Of New Aluminium Section As Aluminium Scrap, Rajasthan High Court Upholds Detention Order

Case Title: M/s. Shrimali Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 224

The Rajasthan High Court has held that, by no stretch of imagination, can brand new aluminium sections be placed on equivalence with aluminium scrap. The goods were fraudulently described as aluminium scrap.

The division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur has observed that the department was justified in detaining the petitioner's vehicle and the goods after noticing the blatant mis-description during interception.

The petitioner has assailed the order by which the vehicle of the petitioner was detained by the officials of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Anti-Evasion, Udaipur and also the show cause notice.

The petitioner submitted that the vehicle/goods of the petitioner were illegally detained by the respondent/department while in transit. Aluminum scrap was being transported in the vehicle, and it was falsely shown to be aluminium in the inspection/detention memo.

NHAI Can't Be Directed To Construct Highways Through Populated Areas: Rajasthan HC Dismisses 'Motivated' PIL By Gram Panchayat

Case Title: Gram Panchayat, Dujana Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur District Pali, Through Its Sarpanch Smt. Panku Devi v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 225

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking direction to the National Highway Authority of India to not construct a by-pass on the highways.

The PIL filed by the Gram Panchayat of a village close to NH 325 also sought direction to the NHAI to construct the highway through the populated area of the village so that the development of the village can take place likewise.

The court opined that ex facie the writ petition has been filed for oblique and malafide motives.

Notably, after arguing the matter at great length, the counsel representing the petitioner, craved liberty to withdraw the petition.

Other Important Updates

PIL In Rajasthan High Court Seeks Implementation of Manufactured Sand Policy; Notices Issued

Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Rajasthan

Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12257/2022

The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice on a public interest litigation against alleged inaction of the government in implementation of the Manufactured Sand Policy in the State.

Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Chandra Kumar Songara were hearing the PIL filed by Dinesh Kumar Goyal and others through Advocate Kuldeep Vaishnav.

Notably, as per the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, "M-Sand" means Manufactured Sand produced by crushing of minerals/ overburden.

As per the petitioners, the implementation of the aforesaid Rules would be beneficial for the public at large because a number of people will get jobs through these manufacturing units and also the state would get revenue from the waste materials lying in dumping yards.