The Rajasthan High Court has drawn a firm boundary between judicial enthusiasm and judicial authority.
In a recent ruling from its Jaipur Bench, a Division Bench comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Ravi Chirania set aside two orders passed by a single judge, holding that the court had ventured far beyond the contours of the case before it. What began as a pair of routine writ petitions over government housing, the Bench observed, was transformed into something resembling a public interest litigation—without ever being one.
At the heart of the dispute were two government employees: a senior doctor and a visually impaired staff member. Both had challenged eviction notices seeking to remove them from official residences after retirement. Each pleaded personal hardship and sought time to continue occupying their allotted quarters.
Interim protection was granted. Eventually, both petitioners vacated the premises. The immediate dispute had dissolved; the “lis” no longer survived.
But the proceedings did not end there.
Instead of closing the matter, the single judge shifted the focus. The State was asked to furnish details of government residences still occupied by retired employees or allegedly being used commercially, in violation of the Rajkiya Awas Avantan Niyam, 1958—the rules governing allotment of official accommodation.
When no report was forthcoming, a Court Commissioner was appointed to inspect properties. A coordinating officer was deputed. The exercise expanded.
During one such inspection, tensions flared. A resident, Upendra Singh, who was not present during the visit, allegedly engaged in a heated phone exchange with the inspecting officials. According to the record, the language used was abusive and dismissive of court authority. A police complaint followed, but no visible action ensued.
The matter then escalated further. The Station House Officer was summoned. Bailable warrants were issued against Singh. An FIR was directed to be registered.
It was this sequence that Singh challenged before the Division Bench.
His core argument was simple: a civil writ petition over personal housing rights cannot morph into a roving inquiry into broader public administration, nor can it become a platform for initiating criminal process—particularly after the original dispute had already become infructuous.
The Division Bench agreed.
It held that the single judge had exceeded jurisdiction by treating the matter as though it were a public interest litigation and by issuing directions that strayed beyond the relief sought in the writ petitions. Courts, the Bench underscored, are bound by the pleadings and prayers placed before them—especially in ordinary writ proceedings.
With that, the two impugned orders were set aside.
The ruling stands as a reminder that judicial power, however well-intentioned, must remain tethered to the case at hand. Even in moments of provocation or administrative frustration, the form of the proceeding defines the limits of authority.
