Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: May 2025
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 161 To 2024 194 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
NOMINAL INDEX
Amit v Shri Ganesh Raj Bansal & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 161
Shubham Rewad & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 162
Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 163
Giriraj Prasad Sharma v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 164
Vinod Shaily & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 165
Ganraj Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 166
Hussain Mohammad v Shri Tolaram & Anr., and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 167
Smt. Rajani Bhardwaj v Director, Secondary Education 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 168
Bhikam Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 169
Indra & Anr. v Jagdish Chandra & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 170
Shravan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 171
Varshita Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 172
Javed Mohammad and Anr. Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 173
Rakesh Totuka v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 174
Khyali Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 175
Rajasthan Urban Infrastructures Development Project Versus M/s National Builders 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
Khema v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
Karnawat Marbles v Sohan Singh 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
Sunil Kumar Bhakoo Versus Smt. Varisha 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 179
Balram Yadav v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 180
Leela Kumari v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
Jai Singh v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
Hari Narayan Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
Shree Jagdish Bohra Pvt. ITI & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
Chirag Naruka v the Chairman, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
Sakshi Choudhary v Union of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
Dr. Jwala Prasad Kaloshia & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
Vikas Vishnoi v Controller of Examinations, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
Arta Broch Ceramics Private Limited v Clay Craft (India) Private Limited and other connected petition 2025 Livelaw (Raj) 189
Abdul Rahim v the Managing Committee & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
Mordhawaj v Ramwati & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
Jasaram Pander v State of Rajasthan and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
Smt. Gauri v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
Rajendra Choudhary & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
Nadeem Ansari and Ors v. State of Rajasthan
Supreme Court Collegium Proposes Elevation Of 3 Advocates As Rajasthan High Court Judges
State v Saif Ali
Suo Moto v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Suo Moto v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Suo Moto v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Rajasthan High Court Lawyers’ Association Writes To CJ Seeking No-Work Period Till May 16 Over ‘Volatile’ Cross-Border Situation
Priyansha Gupta v Union of India & Others
Manjeet Deora v State of Rajasthan & Ors
Orders/Judgments of the Month
Title: Amit v Shri Ganesh Raj Bansal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 161
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging the election of Hanumangarh MLA Ganeshraj Bansal alleging non-disclosure of certain criminal cases, observing that once the police had filed a negative final report prima facie the successful candidate was not required to reveal those cases in the nomination form.
Justice Dinesh Mehta in his order said:
“This Court has it own reservation about the legality and sustainability of the issue which the petitioner has canvassed and in prima-facie opinion of this Court, once the police has filed negative Final Report, the candidate furnishing nomination paper is not required to give particulars of those cases. The petitioner has neither brought to the Court’s notice any statutory provision nor any precedent which enjoins upon a candidate to furnish information even in those cases wherein the police has given him a clean chit“.
Title: Shubham Rewad & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 162
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea for quashing an FIR based on compromise between certain students of Rajasthan University accused of assaulting a former professor, observing that the alleged offences were serious in nature and per se breaches the tranquility and peace of society.
Justice Sameer Jain in his order said:
“The allegations noted in the FIR pertain to a group of students/persons who have locked the gate of the Administrative Block of the University of Rajasthan for whatsoever reasons. The complainant herein is stated to be an ex-professor who at the time of incidence was the In-charge of Disciplinary Committee, however had lodged the impugned FIR in ignorance of law, without attaining requisite sanction from the competent authorities. It can be deduced that the alleged offence is of serious in nature; effects public at large moreover lakhs of students who are enrolled or connected from/with the said University; that the alleged offence per se breaches the tranquility and peace of society and gives a negative influence to the spectators“.
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 163
Rajasthan High Court has granted permission to the Superintendent, Government Balika Grah, to admit a 11 year old rape victim, in any Government School situated near the vicinity of the Balika Grah, and to bear expenses of her studies till she attained the age of majority.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also directed the Superintendent, Balika Grah, to submit report along with documentary proof of the victim’s admission in the School, and also yearly report in July, till she attained majority.
The Court observed that Right to Education was fundamental right of every child as per Article 21A of the Constitution which was further represented by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009
Title: Giriraj Prasad Sharma v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 164
Observing that in a welfare State prolonged denial of regularization despite continuous service for decades borders on institutional exploitation, the Rajasthan High Court passed a slew of directions to the State government in respect of various employees appointed as far back as 1979 whose initial appointments were irregular or illegal, but who had completed long years of service.
Justice Arun Monga held that constitutional morality warranted that appointments irregular in form but not in substance, backed by sanctioned posts and years of continuous service, should not remain at the mercy of procedural regularity.
Title: Vinod Shaily & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 165
While quashing an FIR against private doctors booked for negligently mistreating a patient pursuant to which she passed away, the Rajasthan High Court observed that it would be wrong to assume that a doctor or institution shall deliberately risk its reputation by engaging in rash and negligent medical practices.
In doing so Justice Farjand Ali observed that the “risk of professional ruin, economic decline, and eventual institutional collapse” are factors that act as a natural deterrent against any wilful lapse in the standard of care on the doctors/medical institutions part.
The court thus observed that it is “inconceivable” that a licensed and qualified medical professional, having undergone rigorous academic training and extensive clinical exposure over several years, would “intentionally” pursue a line of treatment with the objective of “endangering human life”.
Finally the Court acknowledged the sorrow owing to demise of a family member, however, it was held that it was solemn obligation of the legal system to distinguish between misfortune and culpability, and to ensure that human suffering did not substitute proof required under law.
Title: Ganraj Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 166
While hearing a bunch of petitions by government employees who were put under the category of “Awaiting Posting Orders” without assigning or conveying any reasons, the bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court issued guidelines.
The State was directed to issue necessary administrative directions to all the HoDs/Administrative Secretaries, and other competent administrative officers to sensitize them about the guidelines.
Title: Hussain Mohammad v Shri Tolaram & Anr., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 167
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a batch of pleas filed by former Congress MLA and State Cabinet Minister Pramod Jain Bhaya, his friends and relatives, seeking quashing of 13 FIRs claiming that these were lodged with political motives and were handled by investigating agencies under the influence of the ruling party.
The court also rejected the petitioners’ plea to club the FIRs after observing that the ‘test of sameness’ was not satisfied. It further said that the petitioners’ simultaneous plea for quashing and a unified probe is legally irreconcilable and cannot be granted.
Justice Sameer Jain ruled that the FIRs registered, were concerning distinct and independent allegations, involving different witnesses, different documents, and separate causes of action.
Title: Smt. Rajani Bhardwaj v Director, Secondary Education
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 168
Expressing “pain” on the prevalence of gender bias, the Rajasthan High Court issued a mandamus to the State to take an immediate policy decision to rectify shortcomings in policies/rules leading to discriminatory practices against women performing the same duties as their male counterparts, but who are denied equivalent benefits.
In doing so Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal that denied promotion to a lecturer to the post of Principal solely due to her gender and placement in the cadre of girls’ institutions, terming it a violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21, of the Constitution of India.
Title: Bhikam Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 169
Reading down the proviso to Rule 50(4) of State Civil Services (Pension) Rules barring withdrawal from voluntary retirement once the application is accepted by the employer, the Rajasthan High Court said putting a complete embargo on an employee’s choice to withdraw retirement plea even before it becomes effective renders the scheme suffering from manifest arbitrariness.
It further held that withdrawal of a voluntary retirement application cannot be rejected without application of mind.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman opined that the restriction incorporated by the proviso, without reference to any determining principle, was destructive of the objective of providing 3 months window period under Rule 50(1), before an application for voluntary retirement became effective.
Title: Indra & Anr. v Jagdish Chandra & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 170
Enhancing the compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the kin of a deceased second year MBBS student from around Rs.12 Lakhs to over Rs.1 crore, the Rajasthan High Court said that computing deceased’s income prospects based on the standard of minimum wage of skilled worker was wholly unrealistic, unduly pedantic and hypertechnical.
Justice Arun Monga opined that while dealing with young professionals, courts shall rise above “rigid arithmetical calculations” and insistence of income proof. Such minimum-wage based approach led to devaluing education, aspiration and merit, the court added.
Title: Shravan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 171
While directing reinstatement of a government employee terminated without charge sheet or disciplinary inquiry, the Rajasthan High Court said that an order of termination in service law is akin to capital punishment which can be passed only after holding a proper inquiry to prevent punishment of innocent persons.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur was hearing a petition filed by a Physical Training Instructor who was terminated from services based on a show cause notice that alleged him to have secured appointment by playing fraud, without issuing any charge sheet or conducting any disciplinary inquiry.
Title: Varshita Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 172
While hearing a petition by a Class 10th Student who was given a wrong question social science question paper by the invigilator, the Rajasthan High Court directed the evaluation of the student’s answer sheet treating her as a general/ordinary student observing that she should not suffer due to the invigilator’s mistake.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said:
“In the considered opinion of this Court, students should not suffer due to the mistake on the part of Invigilator/Examiner or any administrative oversights. For the fault, mistake and negligence of the Invigilator or School Administration, the students, like the petitioner, cannot be blamed. If the answers of the petitioner, while attempting the question paper meant for CWSN students are not checked by the respondents, by treating her a general/ordinary students, then the entire academic year of the petitioner would go waste and it would have a costing effect on her future, career and endeavours in the field of academics. This error has occurred due to fault mistake and negligence of the Invigilator, which has caused great hardship to the petitioner but such mistake or fault on the part of Invigilator cannot be allowed to result in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner for no fault of her own“.
Title: Javed Mohammad and Anr. Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 173
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Bhuwan Goyal has held that when the delivery of the arbitral award at the registered address is not disputed, the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act cannot be suspended on the ground that the appellant became aware of the award at a later date. The limitation period must be computed from the date of receipt of the award, not from the date of knowledge.
Title: Rakesh Totuka v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 174
Granting relief to a victim of digital fraud who lost Rs. 58 Lakh from his IDBI bank account due to unauthorized electronic transactions, the Rajasthan High Court directed the bank to refund the entire amount with interest in view of the “Zero Liability” direction by RBI in its July 6, 2017 circular.
Expressing pain at the rise of digital scams, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said that in the age of rapid change of digital evolution, digital scams had emerged as one of the most insidious form of cyber-crime. It was observed that more serious steps were required to curb the dangerous situation.
Title: Khyali Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 175
Rajasthan High Court ruled that comprehensive reading of Sections 11 and 30 of POCSO Act reflected that in prosecution for sexual harassment, the Special Court was mandated to presume existence of the sexual intent once the prosecution had proved commission of the act constituting sexual harassment.
These observations were given by Justice Manoj Kumar Garg while hearing a revision petition filed for charges framed against the petitioners under POCSO Act, wherein it was argued on behalf of the petitioner’s counsel that the act of showing adult videos to a child did not, in isolation, constituted a criminal offence unless it was proven to be accompanied with coercion, exploitation or other unlawful acts.
Title: Rajasthan Urban Infrastructures Development Project Versus M/s National Builders
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Bhuwan Goyal has held that the imposition of liquidated damages by a party primarily responsible for the delay in completion of the work is unjustified. Therefore, the arbitrator’s direction to refund such damages cannot be interfered with, given the limited scope of appellate intervention under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
The court further observed that the question of exemption on LDO falls within the jurisdiction of the excise department. The respondent had sought such exemption via a letter dated 17.04.2004 to the Assistant Commissioner, and there is no evidence that the department objected to the claim. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere with the arbitrator’s direction to refund the recovered excise duty.
Title: Khema v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
Setting aside the Trial Court’s order, Rajasthan High Court acquitted a rape convict, opining that since false accusations were not uncommon, judiciary had to exercise prudence and discernment, particularly in cases involving serious allegations like rape. It was held that such charges may be motivated by motives like revenge, extortion or evasion of financial obligations.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg gave this ruling in the background of lack of corroboration of prosecutrix’s testimony from scientific and medical evidence, non-production of FSL report, as well as delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR which was stated as being indicative of a fabricated or exaggerated story.
Title: Karnawat Marbles v Sohan Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
Rajasthan High Court has upheld an order of the Tribunal under Employees Compensation Act granting compensation to a daily wage worker (respondent) who was injured during his employment but was not appearing in the Employees State Insurance Register or the attendance register of the employer-appellant.
While agreeing with the reasoning of the Tribunal that the employee could be a daily-wage worker, the bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that it was a common industrial practice to not reflect casual or daily wage workers in the formal employment records.
Title: Sunil Kumar Bhakoo Versus Smt. Varisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 179
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Bhuwan Goyal has held that when a court, in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) finds that the agreement to sell, on which the arbitration was initiated, is insufficiently stamped, it must provide the party an opportunity to cure the defect by impounding the instrument. The court cannot set aside the arbitral award on the ground that the agreement was invalid due to insufficient stamping.
It further observed that a curable defect before the arbitrator became incurable at a later stage, leading to a scenario where, even if the issue of admissibility is reversed, the agreement remains unenforceable. This enables a party to rely on the technical ground of insufficient stamping as a defence under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration Act, despite the arbitrator having earlier ruled in the appellants’ favour.
The court further observed that as per Section 36 of the Stamp Act, once an instrument is admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot be questioned later in the same suit or proceedings on the ground of being unstamped, except under Section 61.
Title: Balram Yadav v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 180
The Rajasthan High Court fined State University of Health Sciences Rs 10 Lakh for admitting an ineligible student in the B.Sc course, and had later disallowed him to give first year final exams observing that the varsity’s negligent act had caused loss of one year to the student, creating an obstacle in his future educational pursuits.
Concurrently, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected the petition filed by the ineligible student seeking directions to Rajasthan Univeristy of Health Sciences (RUHS) to allow him to pursue his studies, opining that “no ineligible candidate could be permitted to take admission to any course and be allowed to complete it under the protection of a court’s order“. The court further said that no illegality could be allowed to be perpetuated.
Title: Leela Kumari v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that once an employee was provided a fresh appointment letter, she could not be bound by the condition of bond prescribed in her earlier appointment letter or the rules governing such appointment.
Justice Rekha Borana was hearing a writ petition filed against a direction from the State directing recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs from the petitioner on account of breach of bond on her part as she got transferred from being a “Community Health Officer” to a “Nursing Officer”.
“Had the intent of the State been to ensure the compliance of the bonds as furnished by the incumbents in terms of the advertisement in the year 2020, definitely a specific condition to the said effect would have been incorporated in the Rules of 2022. The same having not been incorporated, clarifies that it was never the intent of the legislature to enforce the said condition,” it added.
Title: Jai Singh v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the quashing petition by a police constable charged under the NDPS Act for unlawfully and illegally retaining opium recovered from an intercepted vehicles, for a period of 4 days.
Terming it a “very unique case of unlawful activities and exercise of power by the members of Law Enforcing Authority”, Justice Farjand Ali observed that even having possession of contraband in itself was an offence, despite there being a license or any authority under law to keep it detained.
Title: Hari Narayan Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
The Rajasthan High Court held that land reserved for the purpose of construction of school could not be allotted for the purpose of construction of hostel that too at a very lower reserve price of only 5%, as opposed to Rule 18 of Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (“the Rules”).
While calling the allocation as illegal and without any justification, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that there were certain “hidden extraneous considerations behind the entire action of the State for allotment of land in question” in favour of the respondent society.
“Perusal of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1974 indicates that only in exception cases, where the State Government is satisfied that operation of the said Rules causes hardship in any particular case or where the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in public interest to do so, may relax the provisions of these Rules.”
Title: Shree Jagdish Bohra Pvt. ITI & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
The Rajasthan High Court allowed 139 appeals by Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) setting aside a single judge’s order, ruling that ITIs governed under the Apprentices Rules, established/recognized prior to 2018 academic year were not required to furnish performance bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000 per unit.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma was hearing a bunch of appeals filed by Industrial Training Institutes (ITI) imparting vocational training to students in different states, challenging the order of single judge. The single judge had held that Training Institutes running the vocational courses are liable to comply with the condition of furnishing bank guarantee whether such Training Institutes were established prior to 2018 or afterwards.
Title: Chirag Naruka v the Chairman, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
Quoting playwright William Shakespeare quote “What’s in a name?” from “Romeo and Juliet”, Rajasthan High Court while underscoring that a name is everything said that it was the foundation of one’s legal, social and emotional identity and hence a mother being ‘birth giver’ has every right to get her name recorded in her children’s academic records.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that prior to 2001, there was no concept of adding mother’s name in children’s educational records, which was not only unjustifiable but also clearly retrogressive. Hence, with the passage of time, it became mandatory to include the names of both the parents in their children’s educational certificates and degrees.
Title: Sakshi Choudhary v Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioner who was denied admission in B.Sc (Nursing) under Armed Forces Medical Services despite being eligible, after being assessed as “unfit” when her hemoglobin was found to be low owing to heavy menstrual blood flow at the relevant time.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that,
“A girl’s health condition like the petitioner, should not hinder her access to education merely because that of her hemoglobin was found to be below the prescribed level because of heavy menstrual bleeding. Menstrual cycle should not be treated as a barrier to the education of any girl child like the petitioner. Denying education on the basis of health concerns, arising due to menstruation is unacceptable.”
The Court stated that menstrual cycle should not be treated as a barrier to girl child’s education, and denying education on the basis of health concerns arising due to menstruation was unacceptable.
Title: Dr. Jwala Prasad Kaloshia & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
While granting relief to a bunch of Teaching Associates engaged under the “Vidhya Sambal Yojna” (“Yojna”) in colleges covered under the Rajasthan College Education Society (Raj-CES), Rajasthan High Court said that their engagement shall be governed under the 2023 Raj-CES Hiring of Manpower Rules, 2023 rather than the Yojna.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in his order held that vide its order dated July 11, 2022, the State Government not only constituted Raj-CES, but also notified that 2023 Rules that governed and regulated the hiring of manpower on a contractual basis, and others service conditions of people engaged in connection with affairs Raj-CES.
Rajasthan High Court Quashes Suspension Of MBBS Students Accused Of Giving NEET For Other Aspirants
Title: Vikas Vishnoi v Controller of Examinations, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a bunch of MBBS students who were put under suspension on order of National Medical Commission (“NMC”) owing to FIRs launched against them alleging that they impersonated some other candidates in NEET UG Examination-2023, directing the respective colleges to allow them to attend classes and appear in exams.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled that that in absence of any provision providing power to suspend, rusticate or cancel the admission of the candidates involved in such act, suspension of the petitioners was not only illegal and without jurisdiction but also violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further held that the case against the petitioners was not that they got admission by asking someone else to appear on their behalf, but that they gave the exam impersonating someone else. In such a case, there was no dispute regarding their own merit or eligibility of getting admission in the medical courses, hence, lenient view had to be adopted, with caution.
Title: Arta Broch Ceramics Private Limited v Clay Craft (India) Private Limited and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Raj) 189
The Rajasthan High Court has said that once a plaint was returned, the same could not be entertained by the same court based on same averments made in the earlier plaint, in the absence of any specific new pleadings or averments in the re-instituted case.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held the averments made in any application under Section 151, CPC, could not be considered part of the formal pleadings and hence, no suit could be re-registered, in the same court, based on that alone.
“Once a plaint is returned to the plaintiff, the same should not be entertained on the basis of the same averments made earlier in the same plaint. Unless and until a fresh suit with new averments regarding the cause of action is presented, the previously returned suit cannot be re-instituted or tried. In the absence of specific pleadings, the Commercial Court cannot entertain a suit that was previously returned, due to lack of jurisdiction, based on the assertions made about the defendant’s business in Jaipur in any application submitted under Section 151 CPC. The averments made in any application under Section 151 CPC cannot be considered as part of the formal pleadings in the previous plaint, and therefore, the suit cannot be re-registered on that basis alone“.
Title: Abdul Rahim v the Managing Committee & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
The Rajasthan High Court has said that if any part of an institution was receiving a grant, then the entire institution shall be treated as aided and even if the grant was not received for a particular post, employees on such posts are entitled to protection from removal under State Non-Government Educational Institutions Act and relevant rules.
Justice Anand Sharma further opined that irrespective of receiving any aid, a recognized institution could not be absolved from the mandate of Section 18 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act that laid down procedure for removal, dismissal and reduction in rank of employees.
The Court stated that while non-government educational institutions received facilities and aid from the State, these were also under legal obligations to strictly comply with the statues, rules and regulations.
Title: Mordhawaj v Ramwati & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the power of the Revenue Board provided under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”) is only administrative in nature and not akin to the supervisory power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, in exercise of such administrative power, no decree or judicial order could be set aside.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Board of Revenue wherein while exercising power under Section 221 of the Act, order of the Revenue Appellate Authority (“RAA”) was set aside.
“The power of Board of Revenue under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 is not akin to the power of the High Court, as provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the scheme of the Act of 1955, there is a clear demarcation of the judicial and the administrative powers of the Board. While Section 230 of the Act of 1955 provides for the judicial power, Section 221 of the Act of 1955 confers only administrative power and in exercise of administrative power, no decree or judicial order could be set aside.”
Title: Jasaram Pander v State of Rajasthan and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that procedural safeguards under Section 33(2) and 37 of the POCSO Act are contingent on the age of the victim, and have to be confined to the statutory definition of “child”. Therefore, once a victim attains the age of majority during trial pendency, these procedural safeguards cease to apply.
“While the POCSO Act is indeed a benevolent legislation, designed to safeguard children from sexual offences, the protective mechanisms embedded therein cannot be extended to adults…Such an approach would Subvert both the legislative intent and the constitutional requirement of parity in procedural fairness, thereby reducing the courtroom into a space of therapeutic justice rather than forensic adjudication.”
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that such procedural safeguards must cease to be applicable upon the victim attaining majority unless the Court deems it necessary in the interest of justice and psychological welfare of the witness without causing undue prejudice to the accused’s fair trial rights.
While carving an exception to this ruling, the Court further ruled that by recording reasons in writing, the Court could extend the benefit of these safeguard, if deemed necessary in the interest of justice and psychological welfare of witness without causing any undue prejudice to the accused’s fair trial rights.
Title: Smt. Gauri v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
Rajasthan High Court set aside the transfer of a Grade III Teacher (Social Studies) whose subject was changed to English, stating that if she is forced to impart education on a subject she is not qualified in, she may have to face adverse civil consequences like departmental proceedings.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Saneep Shah further held that the appellant’s transfer would also deny her prospective students’ the benefit of being taught by a qualified teacher, thus violating their rights under Article 21-A of the Constitution.
Title: Rajendra Choudhary & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a PIL filed by practicing advocates of Gram Nyayalaya, Jodhpur against the proposed construction of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) near the village court, ruling that it was not for the High Court to decide under Article 226 which site would be more suitable for setting up the STP.
A division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Sandeep Shah, further held that establishment of the STP was in itself in public interest.
“It hardly needs any reiteration that the establishment of the STP is in public interest and for the public good and some inconvenience at some stage may be caused to the nearby people, but the larger public good cannot be ignored for that reason. The respondents have placed on record the notice inviting objections and the order sanctioning the STP, as also the details with regard to the type of STP being installed, where they would be using sequencing batch reactor technology. They have also placed on record the details of the technology in question, which will ensure minimal environmental impact. Not only this, it is an admitted case that after considering all the adverse environmental impacts, as well as the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1981 and other ancillary facts, the Pollution Control Board has granted the consent to establish the STP in question“.
Title: Nadeem Ansari and Ors v. State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court on Friday (May 30) directed the State authorities not to take any coercive action for four weeks against meat shop owners in Kota whose shops had been directed to be seized and closed by the municipal authorities.
While disposing of the plea moved by certain meat shop owners of the city, the Court further directed the Respondent-authorities to decide their applications for renewal of license expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said :
“Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners were granted licenses to run meat shops and the validity of the same has expired and thereafter, several applications have been submitted by the petitioners for renewal of the same before the competent authority but in spite of passing of considerable time, the application submitted by the petitioners have not been decided, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the applications (pending, if any) for renewal of licenses expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order”.
Supreme Court Collegium Proposes Elevation Of 3 Advocates As Rajasthan High Court Judges
The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held today, recommended the elevation of three advocates as the Judges of the Rajasthan High Court.
They are :
(i) Shri Bipin Gupta,
(ii) Shri Sanjeet Purohit, and
(iii) Shri Ravi Chirania.
Title: State v Saif Ali
The Rajasthan Government has moved the High Court challenging the acquittal of actors Saif Ali Khan, Sonali Bendre, Tabu and Neelam by the trial Court in the 1998 Blackbuck Poaching Case.
Justice Manoj Kumar Garg heard the State’s appeal on May 16 and in its order said: “List the matter on 28.07.2025 along with the criminal appeal filed by the accused – Salman Khan“.
Title: Suo Moto v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
In the matter of suo moto cognizance in relation to increasing suicides in coaching institutes, particularly in Kota, Rajasthan High Court expressed serious concern over the matter, highlighting that no legislation has been framed by the State despite the PIL being pending since 2016.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit highlighted that it had been passing various orders from time to time to bring about change in the “sorry state of affairs”.
“Since no legislation has been framed despite pendency of this petition since 2016, this Court was inclined to issue appropriate directions for implementation of the guidelines of the Central Government till appropriate legislation comes in place by passing a detailed order today itself, taking into consideration the gravity of the situation. We are however inclined to defer passing further orders in the matter in view of what has been stated by learned counsel for the respondents that on the issue of deaths having taken place in Kota, cognizance has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter would again be coming up for consideration on 23.05.2025 and further taking into consideration that the Counsel state that they seek to apply to the Hon’ble Supreme Court for transfer of this case also,” it said.
Title: Suo Moto v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
In a suo-motu plea concerning 16 non-functioning permanent Lok Adalats, the Rajasthan High Court on Thursday (May 15) expressed its dissatisfaction with the affidavit filed by the State government and directed the legal affairs department’s principal secretary to remain personally present in court on the next date of hearing.
A division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Sandeep Shah in its order said:
“An affidavit has been filed in compliance of the direction issued by this Court on 13th May 2025 but it is highly unsatisfactory”.
The court had on May 13 taken suo motu cognizance of a Dainik Bhaskar news report which claims that owing to an order passed by the State Government on April 9 as many as 16 permanent Lok Adalats are not functioning. The report indicated that around 972 cases were pending at Jodhpur, and there was a high probability that there may be about 10,000 cases pending settlement through the permanent Lok Adalats. The court had then asked the State to file an affidavit in the matter.
Title: Suo Moto v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday (May 13) took suo moto cognizance of a Dainik Bhaskar news report which claims that owing to an order passed by the State Government on April 9 as many as 16 permanent Lok Adalats are not functioning, terming it as a “very serious issue concerning Access to Justice”.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Sandeep Shah in its order states that the report indicates that around 972 cases were pending at Jodhpur, and there was a high probability that there may be about 10,000 cases pending settlement through the permanent Lok Adalats.
Update: In light of subsequent developments, the lawyers association has decided to withdraw its representation for no-work, and will continue functioning as normal from today onwards.
Rajasthan High Court Lawyers’ Association (“Association”) has requested the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to declare “No Work” period for a duration of 5 days commencing from May 12, 2025, in light of the “prevailing sensitive and volatile situation in the region, coupled with a sustained blackout and the imminent threat posed by separatist and disruptive forces”.
Title: Priyansha Gupta v Union of India & Others
While hearing a plea on the “menace” of online sale of e-cigarettes, the Rajasthan High Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the reply filed by the police and further directed the state’s Director General of Police to inform through a detailed affidavit on the development and implementation of a preventive mechanism to curb such sale.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit also directed the officer-in-charge of PHQ to remain present in court on the next date of hearing to inform with regard to necessary steps taken.
For context, the high court had directed that an affidavit will be filed by the “officer-in-charge in police headquarter” dealing with issues relating to online sale of e-cigarettes and who is fully conversant with the steps which have been taken, action plan, if any, framed and the affidavit must also clearly state as to what action so far against online platforms selling e-cigarettes.
Title: Manjeet Deora v State of Rajasthan & Ors
The Rajasthan High Court in an interim order has restrained the State government from granting benefits of Swami Vivekanand Scholarship for High Studies (earlier known as Rajiv Gandhi Scholarship) to any candidates falling under the E3 category having annual family income of more than 25 lakhs, till further orders.
Expressing pain at the situation, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said so after noting that “millions of rupees” from government exchequer have been given in the name of such Scholarships to candidates having rich & wealthy parents depriving those needy, poor and scholar candidates who are outstanding in their studies. The high court further said that it “cannot shut and close its eyes to such discretionary functioning of the Government and its officials who are misusing the public money and government exchequer in the name of granting Scholarships to those, who are not in fact entitled to receive the same”.
