The Rajasthan High Court quashed a Special Judge's order releasing a vehicle seized by the Narcotics Control Bureau, holding that where the CrPC is inconsistent with the NDPS Act, Section 51 makes the NDPS Act prevail. The NCB may dispose of the vehicle under Section 52A, an interim measure that leaves the owner's rights to be decided in confiscation proceedings under Sections 60 to 63 (paras 7-10).
In the Narcotics Control Bureau's pending appeal, the Rajasthan High Court allowed its application to dispose of a car seized in 2012 under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Section 52A is an interim measure of disposal, not confiscation, and does not prejudice the owner's rights under Sections 60 to 63; the proceeds stay with the NCB as custodian, and the 2015 notification applies to the earlier seizure (paras 15-18).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL, the award-holder, against a Commercial Court order refusing its application under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to send the award back to the Arbitral Tribunal. Applying I-Pay Clearing Services, the Court held that remission serves only to add reasons or fill gaps for findings already recorded, and cannot cure an award without findings on contentious issues (paras 37-40, 46).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Single Judge's order granting Liberalised Family Pensionary Awards to the widow of a BSF Head Constable who died of hypothermia on border duty. Under the Office Memorandum of 03.02.2000, that benefit is only for deaths in Categories ‘D’ or ‘E’; his death was rightly placed in Category ‘B’, and Army schemes cannot be extended to BSF personnel (paras 21, 34, 37). The direction on compassionate appointment for her son also fell (para 38).
The Rajasthan High Court held that an order granting interim maintenance in a pending application under Section 125 CrPC is an interlocutory order, so a criminal revision against it is barred by Section 397(2) CrPC and, where a Family Court passed it, by Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. Bound by its Division Bench ruling in Anu v. Ratan Lal Sharma, it dismissed cross revisions by a husband and by his wife and daughter as not maintainable (paras 21-24).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a Senior Citizens Tribunal order directing a son and his wife to vacate the house owned by his widowed mother (paras 1, 15-17). It held that the son's duty under the 2007 Act covers residence and welfare, that ousting and ill-treating the owner-mother violated her right to live with dignity under Article 21, and that where parents are ill-treated it is their choice whether the son lives with them (para 15). The writ petition was dismissed (para 18).
The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition of a NEET UG-2021 candidate who had been found ineligible for MBBS admission in the persons-with-disability (PwD) category. The Disability Certificate Centre at SMS Medical College, Jaipur, had issued its certificate of 27.12.2021 casually, and even a re-examination ordered by the Court ignored the Gazette norms (paras 19, 21). On the Medical Board's report of 29.03.2022, the candidate was held entitled to PwD reservation, subject to rank and merit (para 28).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a revision seeking default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. The accused was first held for a day under Section 363 IPC and bailed; after further offences, including offences under the POCSO Act, were added, he was re-arrested on 27.10.2021 and charge-sheeted on 24.01.2022. The Court held that the 90 days run from when investigation of the added offences began, not from the FIR, and that an application filed after the charge-sheet is not maintainable (paras 17-27).
The Rajasthan High Court held that the Commissioner, College Education had no power to put penalty clauses in the Private Colleges Policy under which private colleges paid to regularise deficiencies in temporary recognition and obtain an NOC. The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 provides penalties only in Sections 33 and 34, and no notification under Section 42 delegated any such power (paras 23, 25, 33). Penalties paid must be refunded (para 36).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed, with costs of ₹2 lakh, a textile park company's writ petition against notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Section 17 gives a specific remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Section 35 gives the Act overriding effect, so the writ was not maintainable (para 14). The company had also not come with clean hands and had not impleaded the consortium banks against whose action it sought relief (paras 15, 18).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that Section 56 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which lets only an applicant or appellant appear in person or through chartered accountants, company secretaries, cost accountants, legal practitioners or its officers, unfairly shut out respondents (paras 33-38). It declared the non-inclusion of the word ‘respondent’ illegal and read the section down so that it now opens ‘The applicant or appellant or respondent’ (paras 44-46).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by a Civil Judge Cadre candidate with a benchmark disability who wanted a separate cut-off for such candidates in the preliminary examination result of 11.01.2022. Following Indra Sawhney, the Division Bench held that this reservation is horizontal, so selected candidates are placed in their own category (paras 12, 14). The 2010 Rules provide no separate cut-off, the preliminary examination only shortlists, and Vikram Singh Chauhan had settled the issue (paras 15-16).