#Rajasthanhighcourt Archives - Page 2 of 3

13 Jul

The insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

Prime Legal

Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Samya, Sinty & Anr.

Case No.: S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 46/2002

Decided on: 01/05/2023

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

Facts of the case:

On 19.09.1996 at about 2.15 p.m. when Suraj Karan @ Suraj Mal Mali was on his way to duty to the mill of his employer and reached near the Vivekanand School, he was hit by a speeding bus as a result of which he got injured. He was immediately taken to the hospital but he died within a short time. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application for compensation under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “the act”). The appellant insurance company filed the written statement with a specific plea that the driver was holding the licence for driving the H.G.V. (Heavy Goods Vehicle) only where as he was driving a bus which was a Heavy Passenger Vehicle.

The owner has pleaded existence of insurance policy of the vehicle involved and fixing of liability upon the insurance company. Whereas the insurance company has denied manner of the accident, negligent driving by the bus driver and also taken a plea about non-existence of valid driving licence of the bus driver.

The driver of the offending vehicle was issued driving licence prior to the amendment made in the act by Act 54 of 1994.

Judgement:

The direction of the impugned judgment directing only the insurance company to pay the compensation is liable to be modified. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 16.07.2001 is modified to the extent that appellant insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. No costs. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent.

There being violation of specified condition, the insurer is held liable to pay the compensation.

The tribunal ought not to have absolved the owner of the tribunal because he was guilty of breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Since, the involved vehicle was insured therefore, both the vehicle owner and the insurance company were liable for joint and several liability to pay the compensation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

7 Jul

Petitioner shall be entitled for actual benefit of pay scale: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #Jodhpur #Promotion, #Rajasthanhighcourt

Case Title: Jota Ram versus State Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17915/2019
Decided on: 24/05/2023
Coram: JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Facts of the case:

The petitioner who was appointed on the post of Patwari as a Scheduled Tribe candidate by way of order dated 07.10.1993, joined the services on 08.10.1993.

During his tenure as a Patwari, some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and pending such proceedings, his case for promotion was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committees for years 1999-2000 and onwards but the result was kept in sealed cover.

Thereafter a punishment order came to be passed on 22.08.2008.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner’s predicament that after passing of the penalty order dated 22.08.2008, though the petitioner had been pursuing the respondents to open the sealed envelope and give him promotion, but for six years the respondents did not pay any heed and promoted him as late as on 14.10.2014, he contended that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of delay on the part of respondents. Learned counsel argued that the respondents have wrongly placed the petitioner along with the ILRs who were promoted against the vacancies of year 2014-2015.

His Second argument has been that since the basic order of promotion has been passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur on 14.10.2014, considering his promotion to be from 2008-2009, the Collector by way of order impugned dated 06.05.2015, could not have changed it to the vacancy year 2014- 2015.

Arguments of the Respondent:

Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the respondents have committed no error of law in reckoning petitioner’s seniority with effect from 2014-2015.

In support of his contention aforesaid, he relied upon Rule 171-A(2) of the Rules of 1957 and submitted that the seniority of the Inspector Land Records is required to be reckoned from the date of continuous officiation on the post of Inspector Land Records. He submitted that the petitioner can be considered as Inspector Land Records, only when he started officiating or working as Inspector Land Records and hence, the petitioner cannot be given seniority from the year 2008-2009, particularly when he did not work as Inspector Land Records prior to 06.05.2015.

Judgement:

After the correction of the seniority list, the petitioner shall be conferred all consequential benefits, including promotion to the next post.

Review DPC for considering petitioner’s case be convened within a period of 3 months from today and order of promotion (if the petitioner is found eligible and suitable) be passed by 30th September, 2023. The petitioner shall be entitled for actual benefit of pay scale etc. with effect from the date of the order or 30.09.2023, whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall be given notional benefit from the date persons junior to him have been promoted upto 30th September, 2023/actual date of promotion.

Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

Written by: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

6 Jul

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Former RPF Constable’s Plea Against Termination, Says No Cause Of Action In Rajasthan

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #Appeal #Railway, #Rajasthanhighcourt

Case Title: Norat Rana v. Union of India & 2 Ors.
Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13031/2017
Decided on: 26/04/2023
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Facts of the case:

The petitioner was terminated from the post of Constable under Rule 57.3 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (RPF Rules 1987) while on probation period vide impugned order dated November 15, 2016, passed by Senior Commanding Officer, 12th BN, Railway Protection Special Force, Thakurli (Maharashtra).

The petitioner approached the appellate authority challenging the impugned order which was rejected by the DIG/R&T, Railway Board, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi vide communication dated April 27, 2017. Thus, the petitioner assailed both the orders before the High Court by way of the present writ petition.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been discharged without holding a proper inquiry and without giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his discharge. However, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has got alternative statutory remedy under Rule 219 of RPF Rules 1987 to file Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority.

It was further submitted that the impugned orders were passed by the authorities in Maharashtra and no cause of action or part cause of action has arisen in Rajasthan, hence the Rajasthan High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present writ petition.

It was argued that an employee on probation period does not have right to continue the job and his services can be terminated during the period of probation.

“When the Appellate Authority is of the view that appeal is not maintainable, then how Revision Petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not been treated as an enrolled member of the Force. In view of the above discussion, this court finds no force in the argument of the counsel for respondent that this writ petition is not maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing Revision Petition under Rule 219 of RPF Rules 1987,” said the court.

Judgement:

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Constable of Railway Protection Force against his termination order.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said the petitioner responded to notice from Thakurli (Maharashtra) and the disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him at Thakurli and finally the impugned order was also passed and served upon him at Thakurli.

However, the court dismissed the petition on the question of territorial jurisdiction and granted liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum as may be available to him under the law.

Written by: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

6 Jul

S.123 Representation Of People Act | Mere Allegation Without Any Cogent Documentary Evidence Does Not Constitute ‘Corrupt Practise’: Rajasthan High Court

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #CPC #Election, #Rajasthanhighcourt

Case Title: Mahaveer Prasad Pareek @ Tiwari vs Rampratap Kaslaniya & Ors S.B. Election Petition No. 4/2019

Case No.: S.B. Election Petition No. 4/2019
Decided on: 04.04.2023

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Vineet Kumar Mathur

Facts of the case:

The petitioner had filed his nomination for election with the name that appeared in the Electoral Roll of his Ward. The list of candidates with their correct names was published by the Returning Officer. However, the respondents allegedly engaged in corrupt practices by publishing false posters that incorrectly displayed the petitioner’s name as “Mahaveer Prasad Pareek @ Shivaji,” instead of his correct name “Mahaveer Prasad Pareek @ Tiwary.

It was further alleged that the respondents engaged in corrupt behaviour by publishing false posters in order to secure more votes, which allegedly led to the petitioner losing votes, as it created suspicion among his voters. The petitioner filed complaints with the Chief Election Commissioner and the Returning Officer, despite which there was no action taken. The petitioner contended that if false posters had not been used, he would have received more votes, and thus, filed the Election Petition.

Judgement:

Justice Mathur pointed out that the pleading with respect to the allegation levelled against the Respondent is casual, does not disclose the required details and is not sufficient to bring home the allegation of corrupt practice in the present case.

Justice Mathur further pointed out that unless there is a specific averment, allegation and evidence in support of the contention that such material got published by the respondents or their agents, it cannot be presumed that such corrupt practice was adopted by the respondents.

Justice Mathur stated that there was no cogent documentary evidence except a bald allegation which cannot be considered to come within the ambit of corrupt practice as enshrined in Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

While dismissing the election petition, Justice Mathur held, “The core issue as to whether the instant election petition disclose any cause of action, a perusal of the averments made in the election petition and the plea taken in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, makes it crystal clear that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action.”

Written by: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

2 Jul

The POCSO case against man dismissed by Rajasthan High Court because victim claims she was not abducted forcibly

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #pocsoact, #Rajasthanhighcourt

TITLE: Ankit Jatav v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr.

Decided on: 31/05/2023

CRLMP-3075/2023

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Facts of the case:

Prayer is for quashing of FIR No.129/2021 registered with Police Station Maangrol, Baran for offence under Section 363 of IPC, however cognizance has been taken under Sections 366, 376, 376(2)(n) and Section 5(1)(j)(ii) and Section 6 of The POCSO Act. According to FIR, the minor girl of the informant left house on 11.04.2021 along with her friend, thereafter she did not return. It was suspected that she was induced to go. On 09.03.2022 the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She stated that she was in love with the petitioner and she left the house along with the petitioner to marry. Thereafter, they married in a temple and thereafter with her consent physical relation between the two was established.

Argument from the Petitioner side:

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the victim were blessed with a child also. In identical facts and circumstances of the case, to protect the matrimonial life, a bench of this Court quashed the FIR to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Judgement

Considering, the fact that the victim had never alleged that she was forcefully kidnapped. No physical relation was with the petitioner when she was a minor. The two have already married and are having a child. In the circumstance, continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Hence, aforesaid FIR and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR stands hereby quashed and the instant petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Written by: Mahima Saini

Click to view judgment

1 2 3