Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025
NOMINAL INDEX
Orders/Judgments of the Month
Sohan Singh v Rajkidevi & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
Manni Devi v Rama Devi & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 258
Ram Kishan v Ram Dai & Ors.; 2025 Live Law (Raj) 259
Raisuddin v State of Rajasthan, and different linked issues; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 260
Chandra Kant Ramawat v State of Rajasthan & Anr; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 261
Riteesh Kumar Jyotishi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan, and different linked issues; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 262
Garvit Vyas v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 263
Manish Saini v Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 264
Smt. Mariya v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 265
Sarla Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 266
Seher Gogia v The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 268
Kanwar Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 269
M/s Mdindia Health Insurance Pvt. Ltd. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 270
District Transport Officer, Haumangarh v Banwarilal & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 271
Ankita Singodia v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
Arman v Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 273
Continental Engineering Corporation Limited v Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 274
Nisha Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
Mrs. Nirmala Kabra v The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 276
Manav Seva Samiti v Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 277
Aditya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
Gram Panchayat, Asota v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 279
Shankar Lal Saini v Smt. Nagina Patoliya & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 280
Mahaveer Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and different linked petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 281
Naurang v Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
Harbajan Singh v Superintendent of Police; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
Khuman Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and different linked issues; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 284
Dr. Rafique Khan v National Institute of Ayurveda; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 285
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission v Lavanshu Shukla & Ors., and different linked petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 286
State of Rajasthan v Chimna Ram; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 287
Pragya Singh v Union of India And Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 288
Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 289
Mahesh Joshi v Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 290
Kailash Chand Sharma & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 291
Other Cases
Suo Motu vs. Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Government Of India & Others
Asharam Alias Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan
Padam Kumar Jain v Bank of Maharashtra and Anr.
Rajasthan University of Health and Sciences v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Vijay Kumar Boyat S/o Shri Raju Boyat & Ors. v. Vaibhav Galriya, Principal Secretary & Ors.
Suo Motu v Union of India & Ors., and different linked petitions
Public Against Corruption v State of Rajasthan
Asharam Alias Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan
Ajay Shivpuri v State of Rajasthan
Sadhana Shivhare v State of Rajasthan
REPORTS
Title: Sohan Singh v Rajkidevi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
The Rajasthan High Court has held that in case allegations in a plaint make out a case of the switch of a property being voidable, solely the civil courts shall have jurisdiction, and never the income courts, no matter the disputed property being an agricultural land and a bar on the identical underneath Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”).
Section 207 of the Act lays down that sure fits and functions referring to agricultural land should be heard and decided completely by a income courtroom.
The bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma was listening to a revision petition difficult order of the Trial Court that rejected petitioner’s utility underneath Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, in search of dismissal of the go well with filed by respondent.
Title: Manni Devi v Rama Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 258
The Rajasthan High Court has opined that when daughters belonging to non-Scheduled Tribe (“ST”) communities had been entitled to equal share in father’s property, there was no cause to disclaim the identical proper to the daughters of the ST neighborhood.
Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down the scope of utility of the Act, and Section 2(2) offers states that nothing contained within the Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe throughout the which means of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution except the Central Government, by notification within the Official Gazette, in any other case directs.
Noting that Section 2(2) of the Act was operates as “barrier in the way of female tribal asserting their rights in their father’s property“, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand mentioned that it was “right and high time” for the Union Government to revisit the supply and if deemed match to “amend the same” to safeguard and promote the rights of Female Members of the Scheduled Tribe neighborhood.
Title: Ram Kishan v Ram Dai & Ors.
Citation: 2025 Live Law (Raj) 259
The Rajasthan High Court has put aside the trial courtroom’s determination in an ex parte continuing through which a go well with for declaration and everlasting injunction was allowed towards the petitioner based mostly on the truth that the service of summons was incomplete underneath Order 5, Rule 17, CPC.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that service of summons by affixing discover at a home with out verifying the tackle of the noticee by acquiring signatures of an impartial witness couldn’t be handled as full.
Title: Raisuddin v State of Rajasthan, and different linked issues
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 260
Upholding an order acquitting a person accused of kidnapping a lady, the Rajasthan High Court refused to simply accept the certificates issued by the lady’s faculty as proof of age in absence of any doc or proof of college employees or register admission kind or mark sheet based mostly on which such the certificates was issued.
The courtroom mentioned that certificates issued by a faculty can solely be based mostly on the entries made in scholar register maintained by the college which had been made based mostly on the entry talked about in admission kind crammed by dad and mom or guardian of the coed, neither of which had been on report.
Justice Farjand Ali noticed “Ostensibly, a certificates of the college can solely be issued based mostly on the entries made in scholar register maintained by the college and entries in scholar register are to be made on the premise of the entry talked about in admission kind crammed by dad and mom or guardian of the coed…neither the admission kind nor the scholar register or any mark-sheet has been introduced on report nor any officer of the School has been examined to determine the above reality. As per part 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, solely the register maintained by a public faculty is a related reality and thus admissible for the proof. A certificates, veracity of which isn’t often called to who issued it, can’t be made foundation to find out the age of any incumbent. This Court is of the view that Exhibit P-9 can’t be made a foundation for figuring out the age of sufferer and thus the realized path courtroom has rightly discarded it“
Title: Chandra Kant Ramawat v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 261
The Rajasthan High Court mentioned that in instances the place “prima facie electronic evidence” in type of voice/video recording is accessible towards accused, then it will be travesty of justice to not enable prosecution towards them for non-fulfilment of requirement of prior approval underneath Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur mentioned that whereas prior approval underneath Section 17A for prosecution goals to guard public officers from malicious complaints, nonetheless the supply can’t be used a device to guard corrupt officers who made a advice or had taken a selected determination for their very own profit.
Title: Riteesh Kumar Jyotishi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan, and different linked issues
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 262
Upholding the 2021 Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination consequence, the Rajasthan High Court mentioned that the normalization course of adopted was as per legislation and the lodging granted to feminine candidates to look for the examination in the future prior on account of Karwa Chauth doesn’t violate Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali was listening to a batch of petitions difficult the ultimate choice listing on the bottom that normalization methodology adopted by the Examination Board was utilized ex-post facto and was additionally in contravention with legislation.
Title: Garvit Vyas v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 263
The Rajasthan High Court held that the Indian Body Builders Federation (IBBF) is a nationwide degree physique duly acknowledged by the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, and therefore the certificates issued by it had been recognizable and deserved to be thought-about for the aim of recruitment and weightage of marks.
The division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu additional highlighted that if the certificates was not thought-about since IBBF was not acknowledged by the Indian Olympic Association (“IOA”), there can be no nationwide degree physique whose certificates could possibly be held to be legitimate since there was no different physique acknowledged on the nationwide degree by IOA.
Title: Manish Saini v Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 264
The Rajasthan High Court imposed a value of Rs. 1 Lakh on a faculty that despatched an erroneously crammed examination type of a pupil to the CBSE for compartment examination, and in addition issued an incorrect “Transfer Certificate” based mostly on which the petitioner accomplished his commencement.
The excessive courtroom imposed the fee on the college to be paid in a single month to the petitioner noting he was “harassed unnecessarily“. The courtroom additional mentioned that sending an incorrect examination type of the petitioner to the Board and issuing him an inaccurate Transfer Certificate exhibiting him as “XII Passed” signifies gross negligence on the a part of the School.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if any fault was dedicated by the college authorities, the petitioner pupil couldn’t be made to endure in a method that jeopardized his complete future and profession.
Title: Smt. Mariya v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 265
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a 32-year previous girl, accused in a twin homicide case, opining that her state of affairs was inherently weak since she had a 5 12 months previous son and no familial help to take care of him.
“This innocent child, in the crucial formative years of his development, is deprived of the essential care, guidance, and emotional sustenance that only a mother can provide…Such involuntary deprivation not only inflicts severe emotional and psychological distress upon the petitioner but also undermines the child’s welfare and well-being…This separation, therefore, transcends mere physical distance, amounting to a profound denial of the petitioner’s elemental right to motherhood and care giving, thereby compounding her already precarious and vulnerable predicament,” mentioned the bench of Justice Farjand Ali.
Title: Sarla Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 266
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the suspension of the Chairperson of a Municipal Board accused of misconduct, nonetheless it continued an inquiry initiated towards her underneath Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009 instituted after the involved space was transformed from a gram panchayat to a municipality.
The courtroom noticed that inquiry initiated underneath both provisions of the Panchyati Raj Act or the Municipalities Act might proceed even after expiry of the elected member’s time period towards whom misconduct is alleged, because the member can’t escape accountability merely as a result of their time period has ended.
Justice Sunil Beniwal in his order in contrast inquiry provisions of Panchyati Raj Act and Municipalities Act and mentioned:
“A comparative reading of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 and Section 40 of the Act of 2009 clearly indicates that an inquiry initiated under either provision may continue even after the expiry of the term of the elected member against whom the misconduct is alleged. What emerges from a plain reading of both provisions is that a person accused of misconduct cannot escape his/her accountability merely because his/her term has ended“.
Title: Seher Gogia v The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
Stating that youngsters born to Indian residents exterior India usually face nice challenges referring to citizenship, the Rajasthan High Court has urged the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to revisit the provisions of legal guidelines associated to the difficulty, and if deemed obligatory, make obligatory amendments.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was coping with a petition filed by a 5 12 months previous lady. She was born to Indian residents in Australia and thus acquired citizenship of that nation. She moved the Court in search of visa extension, which was in astray amid matrimonial dispute between her dad and mom.
The Court directed the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (“FRRO”) to increase her visa for optimum interval with out insisting on mom’s NOC, and in addition to think about her utility for issuance of Overseas Citizenship of India Card (“OCI Card”),“sympathetically” inside 3 months.
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 268
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a father’s petition to terminate his minor daughter’s being pregnant following alleged rape on the premise of the daughter’s unwillingness to endure the process. The Court opined that the consent given by the guardians couldn’t override the autonomy and determination of the pregnant sufferer.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that granting permission, as sought by the dad and mom, wouldn’t solely violate the sufferer’s Right to Life but in addition infringe the suitable to lifetime of the fetus/unborn little one within the womb of the sufferer, as assured underneath Article 21.
Title: Kanwar Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 269
The Rajasthan High Court mentioned that the orders handed by the District Transport Officer, Kothputli suspending registration of automobiles based mostly on allegations by Department of Mines that automobiles had been overloaded with out precise weighing the automobiles, had been unsustainable.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that the orders had been handed merely on the premise of an assumption, relying solely on the report obtained from the Mining Department, and with out truly measuring the weights of the automobiles.
“…order of suspension of registration of the vehicles shall be passed by the Transport Department, only after physical verification of the vehicles, including weighing and measurements of such vehicles that too solely in the cases where overloading is found and established upon such verification. The registration of vehicles should not be suspended based merely on the allegations of overloading on the basis of data or information received from the Department of Mines.”
Title: M/s Mdindia Health Insurance Pvt. Ltd. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 270
The Rajasthan High Court held that an order of blacklisting past the scope of expenses within the present trigger discover was not solely opposite to the ideas of pure justice but in addition amounted to a denial of alternative, affecting the suitable of enterprise of the aggrieved get together.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was listening to a petition by an insurance coverage firm, which was appointed as a Third Party Administrator for the Rajasthan Government Health Scheme, towards the order of the State that blacklisted it from collaborating in different tender processes for 3 years.
Title: District Transport Officer, Haumangarh v Banwarilal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 271
The Rajasthan High Court held that merely as a result of the transport automobile for carriage of passengers was talked about within the definition u/s 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (“Act”), Permanent Lok Adalat (“PLA”) had no jurisdiction to entertain an utility relating to imposition of tax or the speed of imposition of tax in a selected matter.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi noticed that fee of imposition of tax by the Transport Department didn’t fall underneath the class of “Public Utility Services” underneath Section 22A(b) of the Act, and therefore, at what fee the tax shall be imposed on a selected automobile couldn’t be introduced inside that class.
Title: Ankita Singodia v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
The Rajasthan High Court constituted an knowledgeable committee at AIIMS Delhi to look at an MBBS pupil who turned blind after finishing 2 years of the course, and suggest applicable modalities and methodologies to allow her to finish the course.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noticed that there have been a number of individuals, in India and abroad, who turned profitable medical doctors regardless of visible impairment. It referred to Right of Persons with Disabilities Act and mentioned that whereas framing the rules, Doctors with disabilities should have been thought-about.
Title: Arman v Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 273
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand on the Rajasthan High Court expressed shock with a faculty for failing to ship a pupil’s examination kind for writing enchancment examination to CBSE regardless of three reminders, observing that the college’s informal strategy is an “attempt to spoil the future” and one 12 months of the coed’s tutorial profession.
In view of the truth that the college had already compensated the coed of Rs. 1.10 Lakhs and pupil had been allowed to look within the repeat paper for the topic, the courtroom disposed of the plea whereas directing CBSE to declare the end in per week.
Title : Continental Engineering Corporation Limited v Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 274
Title: Nisha Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
The Rajasthan High Court granted reduction to a girl claiming to be the widow of a person, to finish her Diploma Course in Elementary Education underneath ST (Widow) Category, regardless of problem to her standing of “widow” by the following spouse of the deceased.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the standing of the petitioner as “widow” or “divorced wife” of the deceased couldn’t be adjudicated by it as it’s a disputed query of reality. It nonetheless mentioned that since she was allowed to proceed the course based mostly on an interim order, she couldn’t be disadvantaged of the profit now.
“It is for the petitioner and the respondent No.8 (subsequent wife) to approach the appropriate forum of law for declaration of their status. But looking to the fact that by way of passing an interim order dated 21.10.2024 passed by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to undergo her studies of Diploma Course in Elementary Education and she has completed the same, now, at the verge of completion of the aforesaid course, she cannot be deprived from the benefit of studies, which she has underwent under the protection of the interim order passed by this Court“.
Title: Mrs. Nirmala Kabra v The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 276
The Rajasthan High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to determine all pending Trademark registration functions expeditiously, observing that it was anticipated of the authority to provide you with a “strategy” to deal with the difficulty of “backlogs”.
The courtroom handed the order whereas listening to a petition in search of expeditious determination on a 15-year-old trademark registration utility of the mark ‘Breastone’.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand expressed “surprise” and “shock” over the current case, noting that the applying for registration had been mendacity pending for adjudication for over one and half decade i.e. greater than fifteen years which is a “clear act of violation” of the necessary provisions of Rule 50, Trade Mark Rules 2017.
Title: Manav Seva Samiti v Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 277
Rajasthan High Court put aside an order that rejected a public charitable belief’s utility for condonation of 700-day delay in submitting its audit report underneath kind 10-B of the Income Tax Act, observing that trying on the charitable actions itself the delay ought to have been condoned.
The division bench of Justice Okay.R. Shriram and Justice Sandeep Taneja whereas condoning the delay, held {that a} public charitable belief, which in any other case glad the situation for availing exemption shouldn’t be denied the identical merely because of the “bar of limitation” particularly when the statute conferred such “wide discretionary powers” to condone delay.
“The fact that there was any mala fide intention in filing Form 10B belatedly is not alleged in impugned order. The fact that petitioner is a charitable trust is also not denied. Looking at the charitable activities itself, in our view, delay condonation application should have been allowed,” the courtroom mentioned.
Title: Aditya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
The Rajasthan High Court granted relied to a pupil whose scholarship utility underneath state authorities’s Swami Vivekananda Scholarship for Academic Excellence Scheme to check overseas, was rejected on the bottom that he did not submit his resignation letter from his office 1-month previous to graduation of his course.
In doing so the courtroom mentioned that the petitioner can’t be anticipated to resign from his job previous to his choice to the course. It additional emphasised on the position that scholarships play for college students, calling it “life changing opportunities”.
Title: Gram Panchayat, Asota v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 279
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea difficult inclusion of village Asota within the Sujangarh Master Plan 2036 on the bottom that it was carried out regardless of objections by the Gram Panchayat and was detrimental to the panchayat’s autonomy.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur held that session with the respective Gram Panchayat that was carried out previous to such inclusion was adequate and the consent was not a sine-qua-non for taking the coverage determination.
The Court held that after an space was declared as “Urban Area” inside Section 2(1)(x) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (the “Act”), the State was properly inside its rights to grant permission for land conversions from agricultural to non-agricultural makes use of, for growth, enchancment and enlargement of such space.
Title: Shankar Lal Saini v Smt. Nagina Patoliya & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 280
In the background of conflicting orders of Supreme Court, Rajasthan High Court held that an utility underneath Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking extra proof on report at an appellate stage, even when filed in the course of the pendency of attraction needed to be heard on the time of ultimate listening to of attraction.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was listening to a petition filed towards an order of Appellate Rent Tribunal that rejected petitioner’s utility requesting determination of the applying underneath Order 41, Rule 27, CPC, earlier than determination on attraction towards the eviction order.
the Court highlighted the conflicting Supreme Court judgments on the difficulty. In the case of North Eastern Administration Gorakhpur v Bhagwan (2008), the Apex Court had held that utility submitted underneath Order 41, Rule 27, CPC needed to be determined first earlier than taking on the attraction on deserves.
On the opposite, within the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Ors. (2012) it was dominated by the Supreme Court that such utility, even when filed throughout pendency of attraction needed to be heard on the time of ultimate listening to of the attraction. In case it was thought-about and allowed previous to listening to of the attraction, such order was a product of full non-application of thoughts.
Title: Mahaveer Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and different linked petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 281
The Rajasthan High Court held that eradicating formal Sarpanch(s) who had been allowed to carry the put up of Administrators until subsequent elections even after expiry of greater than 6 months of dissolution of their respective panchayats, with out following the process established by legislation for holding contemporary Panchayat elections, was a obvious instance of violation of a constitutional mandate.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand additional opined that extended postponement of those elections might end in a governance vacuum on the native degree, and it was anticipated of the Government of Rajasthan to look into the matter promptly to make sure that the elections of the Panchayati Raj Institutions had been performed on the earliest.
Title: Naurang v Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
The Rajasthan High Court held that the place a decree of prohibitory injunction is rendered worthless by judgment-debtor’s willful and illegal act of dispossessing the decree holder from the disputed property, the executing courtroom had the ability to direct restoration of possession underneath Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC.
Rejecting the argument that executing courtroom’s jurisdiction was confined to implementing decree which on this matter was solely prohibitory injunction and never supply of possession, Justice Farjand Ali noticed,
“The essence of an injunction decree is to preserve possession and to restrain intrusion, “injunct” in itself means you shall not enter or to restrain by injunction. If, in defiance thereof, possession is forcibly taken, then the idea of injunction equally encompasses the authority “to expel” and to revive the rightful get together again into possession”.
Title: Harbajan Singh v Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
The Rajasthan High Court held that denying wage to an worker for the interval once they had been detained in custody on legal expenses–not referring to misconduct in discharge of official duties–and had been subsequently acquitted, was inequitable.
Justice Anand Sharma in his order mentioned: “The broad and salutary principle is that where an employee is detained in custody on criminal charges not attributable to the employee’s misconduct in the discharge of official duties and is subsequently acquitted, the employee cannot be made to suffer an avoidable punitive financial burden. This court finds that inequity results where an employee, who remained out of duty on account of detention (and not by his own volition), is treated more harshly than an employee who remained under suspension while on bail”.
Title: Khuman Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and different linked issues
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 284
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the problem made to an modification introduced in by the Transport Department by which a brand new class of “sleeper bus” was added for levying motorized vehicle tax, taking it out from the earlier class with out qualifying it for the exemptions obtainable underneath different classes.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi held that the “bus” fell within the definitions underneath Sections 2(7) and a pair of(29) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and as soon as the sort or class of car was categorised additional based mostly on seating capability/berth association as per physique varieties outlined underneath the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990, the State was inside its proper to categorize such automobile for tax imposition.
Furthermore, the Court noticed that the completely different fee of taxes was saved based mostly on intelligible differential of the category of automobiles and the world of their operation, therefore, there was no violation in imposing completely different tax charges on sleeper buses as in comparison with different buses.
Title: Dr. Rafique Khan v National Institute of Ayurveda
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 285
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit nonetheless mentioned that regardless of the disagreement with the one decide’s judgment, reduction of directing admission of petitioner wouldn’t be attainable at this stage, since the timeframe for admission was over.
Title: The Rajasthan Public Service Commission v Lavanshu Shukla & Ors., and different linked petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 286
Rajasthan High Court rejected the attraction filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (“RPSC”), towards a single bench determination whereby the respondents, had been allowed to look within the examination for the put up of Assistant Prosecution Officer, who had not handed their legislation diploma however had been showing, on the time of submitting the applying kind.
The division bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta rejected the argument by RPSC that for the reason that commercial prescribed final date of utility, all {qualifications} required for the examination, as prescribed underneath Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Services Rules, 1978 (“the Rules”) ought to have been obtained by that date.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Chimna Ram
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 287
The Rajasthan High Court rejected State’s plea to withdraw a legal case towards Churu MLA Harlal Singh from BJP, who’s accused of utilizing cast Class 10 marksheet alongside together with his nomination papers for contesting the election of Zila Parishad member in 2015.
Terming it a “gruesome crime involving misuse of public office and public money”, the division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal noticed that State couldn’t justify how withdrawing the case would result in broadening ends of public justice, public order and peace.
The Court mentioned, “If we look at the report of the case in gentle of provisions of Section 321 of Cr.P.C. coupled with the ideas propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court within the case of Okay. Ajith & ors. (supra) and the place of legislation annunciated within the instances of Abdul Kareem and others (supra) in addition to Rajendra Kumar (supra), it’s properly settled that the permission for withdrawal from prosecution can’t be granted mechanically. Withdrawal should be for correct administration of justice and solely within the public curiosity. In the current case, neither the State Government has submitted the report relating to satisfaction of the realized Public Prosecutor nor the grounds/causes for withdrawing the First Information Report…registered…towards the accused – Harlal Singh have been assigned within the minutes of the assembly held on 26.11.2024″
Title: Pragya Singh v Union of India And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 288
The Rajasthan High Court granted reduction to a NEET-UG candidate who though belonged to the OBC-NCL (Other Backward Classes Non-Creamy Layer) class as per the State listing, however was nonetheless handled to be from General class within the first spherical of admission.
In doing so the courtroom mentioned that she shall be thought-about underneath OBC-NCL class for the aim of state seats.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit directed the Additional Advocate General showing for the State, to take steps to subject instructions by the Department permitting equally located candidates within the counselling towards the OBC-NCL Category seats, that are to be crammed from the State quota alone.
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 289
Taking under consideration the medical report Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his August 8 order mentioned:
“In the instant case, Medical Board of five Doctors was of the opinion that the petitioner is carrying pregnancy of 32 weeks and termination of such pregnancy is not advisable. As per the opinion of the Board, it would not be safe and would be life threatening to the mother due to advance gestational age and considering the age of the minor victim and looking to overall facts and circumstances, the passage of time and delay caused in approaching this Court, which is on the part of the petitioner, has only further aggravated the said aspect. There is no material available on the record of this Court on the basis of which this Court may differ with the opinion expressed by the Medical Board. Directing medical termination of this pregnancy, at such an advanced stage, would not only endanger life of the minor victim and would also affect the life of fetus in the womb“.
Title: Mahesh Joshi v Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 290
The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Congress chief and former Minister for Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Mahesh Joshi booked in a PMLA case for allegedly colluding to facilitate grant of unlawful tenders underneath Jal Jeevan Mission and receiving “bribe” of Rs. 2 Crores for a similar in addition to laundering funds.
Justice Praveer Bhatnagar perused the proof submitted on information by the investigating officers, and opined that the proof clearly demonstrated Joshi’s involvement within the alleged offence.
“The investigation into the corruption case has revealed significant misconduct involving co-accused Padam Chand and Mahesh Mittal, who are alleged to have secured government tenders through unethical and corrupt practices. It has come to light that a close associate of the petitioner, Sanjay Badaya, was implicated in receiving bribes from contractors, which facilitated the manipulation of official assignments to favour certain individuals or entities. This connection raises substantial concerns regarding the petitioner’s integrity and involvement in these corrupt dealings“.
Title: Kailash Chand Sharma & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 291
The Rajasthan High Court cancelled the 2021 recruitment undertaken by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) of candidates to the put up of Sub-Inspectors, within the background of revelation of systemic irregularities–paper leak, dishonest throughout examination, use of dummy candidates–within the conduct of the whole course of.
Justice Sameer Jain mentioned that such recruitment course of should be canceled and this cancellation is “necessary to uphold the integrity of the State in the conduct of public recruitment examinations”. In doing so the courtroom additionally took suo-moto cognizance of the “systemic malpractices” inside RPSC within the State “in light of the grave improprieties and malpractices that have been brought to light, involving members of the RPSC“.
Underscoring the shortcomings revealed within the SIT report within the conduct of the recruitment course of, the one decide took a suo-moto cognizance of the malpractices throughout the RPSC for establishment of a PIL; it directed the Registrar to put the order earlier than the Chief Justice for applicable proceedings.
Other Developments
The Rajasthan High Court has taken suo moto cognizance of the canine chew incidents within the state, and the menace of stray animals on public roads and highways inflicting a number of deaths within the state.
The courtroom took notice of a information experiences in varied newspapers reporting incidents of dog-bites in Rajasthan, one among which referred to a report revealed by the Press Information Bureau, which is additional based mostly on info given by Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairy in Lok Sabha, giving “alarming figures regarding dog bite cases in India”.
The division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Ravi Chirania in its order mentioned:
“This Court further finds that the stray dogs and cows have created menace not only on the city roads but also on State & National Highways, which declares these roads as highly unsafe for the citizens. The incidents due to stray dogs, cows and other such animals have increased immensely.The Government of Rajasthan in the year 2018 published a report containing data of ten years from 2009-2010 to 2018. The data specifically contains figures regarding the deaths caused in the State of Rajasthan due to stray animals, which are more than 185 in the year 2018. Though the accidents are increasing day by day due to stray animals but the consolidated data has not been reported by the State Government after the year 2018“.
Title: Suo Motu vs. Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Government Of India & Others
The Rajasthan High Court on August 11 directed municipal our bodies to take away stray canines and different animals from metropolis roads whereas making certain that minimal bodily hurt is prompted to them.
The division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Ravi Chirania additional mentioned that if anybody obstructs the municipal our bodies from eradicating stray animals from the roads/colonies/public paths, then Municipal officers/staff are at liberty to take motion towards such individuals which incorporates lodging FIRs for obstructing public servants from performing their duties.
The courtroom handed the path in a suo moto plea whereby the courtroom had earlier taken cognizance of the canine chew incidents within the state and the menace of stray animals on public roads and highways inflicting a number of deaths. Notably, earlier right now the Supreme Court had directed the authorities within the National Capital Territory of Delhi to right away begin choosing up stray canines from all localities and shift them to canine shelters. The instructions additionally lengthen to Noida, Gurugram and Ghaziabad.
Title: Asharam Alias Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan
In the background of Gujarat High Court’s order through which the non permanent bail of Asaram Bapu was prolonged until August 21 on medical grounds, Rajasthan High Court has additionally prolonged the bail granted to him in a 2013 rape case until August 29, 2025.
Last month, vide its order dated July 8, 2025, the division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur had prolonged the bail until August 12, based mostly on a July 3 determination of Gujarat High Court, through which notably, the Gujarat High Court had clarified that additional prayer for extension of non permanent bail shall not be entertained on medical floor.
While directing the Medical Board to additionally opine on want of applicant’s hospitalization or steady medical attendance, the Court prolonged the bail until August 29, 2025, and listed the matter on August 27, 2025.
Title: Padam Kumar Jain v Bank of Maharashtra and Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court has issued a common discover inviting all of the members of the bar to deal with the difficulty, “Whether the bank account of account holder can be seized only at the instance of a letter received from the Police (Investigating Agency) without following the procedure contained under Section 102, Cr.P.C?”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was listening to a petition filed by an individual whose checking account was seized by the Bank of Maharashtra on the occasion of a letter obtained from the Police, allegedly with out following any process prescribed underneath Section 102 Cr.P.C.
Title: Rajasthan University of Health and Sciences v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Rajasthan High Court has stayed the operation of the order of the one bench that allowed the Deepshikha Kala Sansthan (Regional Nursing College) to take part within the counselling for B.Sc. Nursing course for the educational session 2025-26 with out having a sound No Objection Certificate and affiliation from the State Government and Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (“RUHS”).
While staying the whole counseling for the B.Sc. Nursing Course for the educational 12 months 2025-26 till additional orders the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta noticed that ordinarily the Court would have hesitated, nonetheless, the order was handed to forestall deviations within the Nursing Courses and keep away from creation of conflicting rights.
The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that there might be no sympathy for encroachers, directing the the Additional Chief Secretary of the Urban Development and Housing Department to subject instructions to the Municipal Corporation and Municipal Councils of assorted cities & cities to take applicable steps for eradicating unlawful encroachments made on the roads within the metropolis/town-ship in addition to on the footpaths.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit mentioned, “Such drive for removing the encroachments should be undertaken at the State level and the encroachments should be dealt with in accordance with law. No sympathy can be extended to such encroachers and if it is found that any legal authority or police officials had allowed the encroachments, appropriate action against them may also be taken.”
Title: Suo Motu v Union of India & Ors., and different linked petitions
In the suo motu case in regards to the collapse of ceiling and wall of a classroom, leading to dying of seven youngsters, the Rajasthan High Court restrained the State authorities from the utilizing dilapidated faculty buildings/rooms, additional directing the state to make different preparations.
In July 2025, the Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the incident in one of many Government Schools in Rajasthan that resulted in dying of seven youngsters, and had sought requisite experiences from the State.
On August 22, 2025, the division bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, after listening to the counsels and searching on the experiences obtainable on report, directed the State to cease utilizing the college constructing and rooms that had been in dilapidated situations until additional orders.
Title: Public Against Corruption v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the operation of Urban Development and Housing Department’s March 12 order, allegedly regularizing unlawful colonies and encroachments arrange on the general public land in Jaipur which was acquired for Rajasthan Housing Board.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit additional directed demolition and removing of such encroachments, and taking of applicable motion towards the involved officers who allowed such unlawful constructions.
Title: Asharam Alias Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday rejected the applying moved by Asaram Bapu, who has been sentenced to life in a 2013-rape case, in search of extension of his interim bail on medical grounds.
A division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur reportedly took notice of the self-styled godman’s medical report and located that he’s steady.
The Rajasthan High Court appointed a Court Commissioner in a plea difficult State authorities’s order allowing proposed set up of a dairy sales space exterior a non-public residence in Jaipur, the place it was alleged that dairies are operating a wholesale kirana outlets or small eating places
Considering the matter to be having “writ large effect”, the excessive courtroom directed the Court Commissioner to examine Bapu Nagar, Gandhi Nagar and different areas in Jaipur as talked about within the plea and file a report in 7 days.
Justice Sameer Jain opined that the matter was involved with the applicability of Section 152, BNSS, because it pertained to violation of basic rights of the petitioner underneath Article 21 of the Constitution. It was the case of the petitioner that with out taking NOC from some other involved division like electrical energy, police, PWD and many others, the dairy sales space had been permitted to be put in in entrance of his personal residence. Section 152, BNSS, supplies for process for removing of public nuisance.
Title: Sadhana Shivhare v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has mentioned that allotment of liquor outlets in densely populated market was “prima facie” towards Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution, and directed the State to furnish an evidence with respect to such allotment and submit its Temperance Policy.
Justice Sameer Jain noticed that as per Article 47 of the Constitution, the State shall make an try to ban the consumption of intoxicating drinks and medicines which had been injurious to well being apart from medicinal functions. Furthermore, the petitioner had no vested proper to promote liquor.
However, because the Court additional highlighted, regardless of the Temperance Policy, the State had accredited a location for the liquor store in a public market.In this background, the Court directed the Commissioner of Excise Department and the Principal Secretary to look within the subsequent listening to and furnish the Temperance Policy.
