The Rajasthan High Court refused to cancel the bail of an accused whose 21 earlier cases were not before the Sessions Court. The bail order recorded no claim by him that he had no criminal record; the Sessions Court had relied on the case diary, and the investigating officer had neglected his duty to attach a list of the pending cases. The alleged threats were unsubstantiated, and cancelling bail is a harsh step (paras 5-6, 8-10).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld Regulation 9 of the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2017, which lets RERA have complaints decided by single-member benches, and held that such delegation also flows from Section 81 of the Act (paras 20, 36). Deciding 70 petitions together, it held that RERA prevails over the SARFAESI Act, does not reach mortgages created before the Act unless fraudulent or collusive, and can hear complaints against a bank once it takes Section 13(4) measures (para 36).
On a reference from the Sessions Judge, Pali, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that a maintenance claimant may file one consolidated application for the previous 12 months' arrears under Section 125(3) CrPC. The Magistrate treats it as 12 separate claims, issues a warrant for each month and may impose up to one month's imprisonment for each month's default. Shahada Khatoon bars only more than one month for a single default (paras 9, 11-12).
The Rajasthan High Court disposed of 847 petitions seeking release of vehicles seized for illegal mining. To keep parity with vehicles seized by the Mining Department, vehicles seized by the police are to be released only after the owner deposits the compounding fee, the compensation determined by the NGT and the cost of mineral, and undertakes not to repeat the offence, because release on mere surety would encourage illegal mining (paras 5-6, 18-20).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed a husband's appeal against a Family Court order that refused to waive the six-month waiting period in a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent and kept the case for 28.02.2022. Following Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, it held Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act directory, waived the period and directed the Family Court to pass the divorce decree (paras 11-14).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a bail application under Section 439 CrPC is not maintainable against an Additional Sessions Judge’s order rejecting an application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC (para 7). Bail under Section 439 is a co-extensive power that does not test the lower court’s order, while an order on default bail must be examined for its legality in revisional or inherent jurisdiction (paras 6-7). The second bail application was converted into a criminal revision petition (para 8).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a life convict's writ petition seeking amendment of Rule 10B of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 so that prisoners on emergent parole would also get the Covid-19 extension of parole to 30.06.2021. The Division Bench held that regular parole under Rule 9 and emergent parole under Rule 10A rest on distinct criteria, so the two classes are not similarly placed and Rule 10B is not discriminatory (paras 16-17). It also declined to direct amendment of a statutory rule (paras 19-21).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the ICAI Examination Committee’s decision cancelling a CA Intermediate candidate’s result over a pre-examination e-mail to its office bearers urging online exams during the pandemic. Regulation 41 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 reaches only disorderly behaviour in or near an examination hall or unfair means, and the e-mail had no such nexus. The notice never proposed cancellation; the action was arbitrary and against natural justice (paras 53-54, 57-61).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed, with costs, an election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate from the Barmer Parliamentary Constituency in 2019. The petitioner, dismissed from the Indian Police Service on 19.02.2019, had filed his nomination without the Election Commission's certificate under Section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Returning Officer had no option but to reject it, and a certificate issued after scrutiny could not change that (paras 39, 41, 45, 47).
Answering a reference, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that, unless the statute provides otherwise, an offence under a law other than the IPC punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years falls in the second category of Part II of the First Schedule to the Cr.P.C. and is cognizable and non-bailable (para 25). The maximum punishment that may be awarded decides the category, not the minimum (para 21), and Pintu Dey does not lay down the correct law (para 24).
The Rajasthan High Court held that the Finance Department memorandum of 01.06.2017, which defers the next Assured Career Progression (ACP) by three years for an employee with more than two children on or after 01.06.2002, cannot be applied by a blanket order to a third child born after a failed ligation operation (paras 10-12). The operation showed that the couple did not intend a third child, and such exceptions are inherent in the rule (para 11). The State must grant the petitioner ACP with arrears (para 13).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a woman government employee cannot be refused maternity leave under Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 only because her child was born before she joined service. The Rule turns on her being a female Government servant with less than two surviving children, not on the date of birth (para 24). The Court quashed the orders treating her 142 days' absence as unpaid leave and deferring her confirmation (paras 47-50).