Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Petition Against Transfer Order in Railway Protection Force Case Jaipur, January 6, 2025 — The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has dismissed the petition filed by Sunil Kumar, a Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), challenging his transfer from the North Western Railway Zone to the Southern Railway under the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules, 1987. The petitioner, who had been serving in RPF since 2010, raised several objections against the transfer order dated October 13, 2022. He contended that the order was issued in bad faith and without proper jurisdiction. Additionally, Kumar argued that the transfer negatively impacted his seniority, and it was not based on administrative exigencies as required by the RPF Rules. He also cited personal reasons, including his family situation, and ongoing criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which he claimed warranted his posting remaining unchanged. In defense, the respondents, represented by the Railway Protection Force, argued that the transfer was made in the public interest due to allegations of corruption against the petitioner, and the competent authorities had followed the proper procedure, including obtaining necessary approvals under the Railway rules. They also cited the administrative necessity of the transfer to prevent potential tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court, after reviewing the case, upheld the transfer order. It observed that the transfer was authorized by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, in line with the Railway Rules. Additionally, it noted that transfers in cases involving departmental proceedings were allowed under Rule 93.9, particularly when in the public interest. The Court also dismissed the reliance on past judgments cited by the petitioner, clarifying that those cases involved different factual contexts and did not apply to this situation. The Court emphasized that transfer is an inherent part of service and courts typically refrain from intervening unless the order is proven to be illegal or made with malice. As a result, the petition was dismissed, and the transfer order stood, with the Court finding no reason to interfere with the administrative decision. Case Reference: Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Hoshiyar Singh v. Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Jaipur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15598/2022), Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Order dated January 6, 2025. This decision highlights the broad discretion granted to administrative authorities in transferring employees, particularly in cases involving disciplinary proceedings and public interest considerations.     You said: refine it more and include more the rules, judgments which are mentioned in the judgment dont go beyond what is written in the judgment for which news is required ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Legal Update: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Transfer Order of Railway Protection Force Officer Jaipur, January 6, 2025 — In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has dismissed a petition filed by Sunil Kumar, a Sub-Inspector with the Railway Protection Force (RPF), challenging his transfer from the North Western Railway Zone (Kanakpura Outpost) to Southern Railway. The Court ruled that the transfer order, issued on October 13, 2022, was not malafide and was in line with the applicable Railway Rules. Case Background: Sunil Kumar, who joined the RPF in 2010, was transferred inter-zonally in November 2017 from the Northern-Eastern Zone to the Northern-Western Zone for personal reasons, resulting in the loss of his seniority. In January 2022, an FIR was filed against Kumar under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and departmental proceedings were initiated. However, the Court stayed these proceedings in March 2022. After the revocation of his suspension on October 13, 2022, Kumar was directed to report back to duty. On the same day, he was issued a transfer order from the North Western Railway Zone to Southern Railway. Kumar contended that the transfer was issued without proper jurisdiction and was a violation of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules, 1987, particularly regarding seniority and family concerns. He also sought that his transfer be reconsidered due to the ongoing criminal case against him. Court’s Analysis: The Court, while reviewing the case, found that the transfer was made in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules, 1987. Specifically, the Court referred to Rule 93.9, which permits transfers of RPF personnel facing departmental proceedings, if deemed necessary in the public interest and to expedite the finalization of the proceedings. The Court held that the transfer was made to ensure the petitioner’s presence for trial in the ongoing corruption case, and was also in line with administrative exigencies. The petitioner’s argument that the transfer was not in line with personal family reasons, particularly as his wife was working in a government school and their children were studying locally, was rejected. The Court emphasized that the provisions of the RPF Rules, specifically Rules 90, 93.9, 99, and 153.4, along with the Railway Ministry’s Directive dated 18.09.2014 and Office Memo dated 02.02.2010, were not violated in this case. These rules allow for transfers on personal grounds but also prioritize public interest in cases involving ongoing departmental investigations. Further, the Court noted that the Divisional Security Commissioner acted under the direction of the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, who is the competent authority for inter-zone transfers, as per the delegation of powers outlined in the relevant rules. The Court found that the petitioner’s transfer was carried out after the proper procedure was followed and did not violate any rules of jurisdiction. Legal Precedents Cited: The respondents relied on the rulings in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Gordhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 42 and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357, which held that transfer orders are a part of service conditions and courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of malafide intent or violation of the law. The Court found that the transfer order in this case was not vitiated by malafides and was made in the public interest, considering the allegations against the petitioner. Court’s Conclusion: The Court concluded that the transfer order was consistent with the administrative

Rajasthan High Court Directs Inquiry into Alleged Encroachment on Pasture Land in Jaipur https://youtube.com/watch?v=/rOs8P2m6adQ Jaipur, January 6, 2025 – The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, today passed an order in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Pappu Lal Yadav concerning alleged encroachment and unauthorized construction of a pucca house on pasture land in the Loharwada area, Tehsil Kishangarh Rainwal, District Jaipur. The petitioner, Pappu Lal Yadav, approached the Court after submitting a representation on March 22, 2024, highlighting the alleged illegal encroachment. The PIL sought judicial intervention to ensure that the encroachment, if proven, was removed promptly. In the order, the Court emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry whenever encroachment on public or pasture land is alleged. It directed the Gram Panchayat of Loharwada (respondent No. 5) to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the matter, if not already initiated. The Court set a three-month deadline for the inquiry’s conclusion. The Court further clarified that during the inquiry, the Panchayat must provide an opportunity for a hearing to the individual accused of encroachment. This ensures that the process remains fair and just. The High Court’s ruling underscored that this order should not be construed as a decision on the merits of the encroachment issue itself but as a procedural direction for the proper resolution of the matter. The PIL was disposed of after this directive. Case Details: Case Title: Pappu Lal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan & Others Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 19094/2024 Bench: Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uma Shanker Vyas Date: January 6, 2025 Legal Counsel: For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Chandel and Mr. Vijendra Pareek For the respondents: Ms. Shikha Sharma and Mr. G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General (AAG)        Order PDF Download

Rajasthan High Court Directs Expeditious Decision on Condonation of Delay for Income Tax Return Filings Jaipur, January 6, 2025 – The Rajasthan High Court, in a recent ruling, directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur 2, to expeditiously decide on a long-pending application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in the submission of income tax returns (ITRs) for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17. The decision came in the case of Late Kanta Devi Jain, Through her Legal Heir Shri Sunil Mittal v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18311/2024). The petitioner had applied for condonation of delay in filing ITRs for the aforementioned assessment years on August 1, 2018. However, despite the submission of the application, no decision had been made by the authorities. The petitioner’s legal counsel pointed out that a notice dated March 13, 2023, was issued by the respondents with respect to the assessment year 2016-17, but the petitioner had sought condonation for all the years from 2012-13 to 2016-17. The Court emphasized that once an application for condonation had been filed, it should have been decided in a timely manner and not kept pending for such an extended period. In its order, the bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Uma Shanker Vyas instructed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur 2, to decide the condonation application within eight weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with this directive, ensuring that the petitioner’s application is given the necessary attention without further delay. This ruling underscores the importance of timely decisions in tax matters, particularly when it comes to matters of condoning delays in filing tax returns. Order PDF Download

Any registering authority can issue show cause notice under MV Act Rajasthan High Court Upholds Legality of Show Cause Notice Issued by Non-Original Registering Authority Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging the legality of show cause notices issued by a non-original registering authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court, in its judgment delivered on January 3, 2025, clarified the scope of authority of registering authorities regarding the cancellation of vehicle registrations, providing much-needed clarity on the issue. https://youtube.com/watch?v=/a6zhmZW_-Hk The cases concerned three petitioners—Vikram Singh, Hardeep Singh, and Parvinder Singh—who had received show cause notices from the Additional Regional Transport Officer (City), Jagatpura, Jaipur, under Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioners argued that the notices were invalid because the original registering authority, which had issued their vehicle registration certificates, was located at Kotputli. They contended that only the original registering authority was empowered to cancel vehicle registrations under Section 55(2) of the Act. The petitioners sought to quash the notices issued by the Jagatpura authority, claiming that it lacked the jurisdiction to cancel registrations. Their main argument hinged on the interpretation of Section 55(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which states that only the original registering authority has the power to cancel the registration certificate. In light of this, they argued that a non-original registering authority, such as the one in Jagatpura, had no legal basis for issuing the notices. However, the Rajasthan High Court disagreed with the petitioners’ arguments and upheld the show cause notices. The court referred to the relevant provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 55(2), which states: “The registering authority shall, if it is the original registering authority, cancel the registration and the certificate of registration, or, if it is not, shall forward the report and the certificate of registration to the original registering authority and that authority shall cancel the registration.” The court interpreted this provision to mean that while only the original registering authority has the final authority to cancel a vehicle registration, other registering authorities are not excluded from issuing show cause notices and conducting inquiries. The court clarified that the power to issue a show cause notice and initiate an inquiry rests with any registering authority, but the actual cancellation of the registration must be carried out by the original registering authority. The court further explained that the show cause notice issued by the Additional Regional Transport Officer (City), Jagatpura, Jaipur, did not equate to the cancellation of the registration but was simply part of the inquiry process. Therefore, the petitioners’ contention that the notice was unlawful due to jurisdictional issues was unfounded. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that there was no legal infirmity in the issuance of the show cause notice by the Jagatpura authority. The petitioners’ claims were found to be without merit, and the court held that the notices were issued in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. This ruling brings clarity to the authority of regional transport offices in matters related to the cancellation of vehicle registrations and emphasizes that the initial inquiry can be conducted by any registering authority, provided the final decision rests with the original registering authority. The judgment ensures that the administrative process in the transport department remains efficient while adhering to legal protocols. With this decision, the Rajasthan High Court has provided an important interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, reaffirming the broader role of registering authorities in maintaining the integrity of vehicle registration and related processes. Order PDF Download