Shri Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari


  • Appointed as Judge of High Court (HC) of Rajasthan HC on 5 July 2007. 
  • Transferred to Allahabad HC and took oath as a judge on 15 March 2019
  • Practised in the Rajasthan HC at Jodhpur and Jaipur, Central Administration Tribunal, Jaipur and initially in Supreme Court (SC) in Constitutional, Civil, Service, Labour Criminal and Arbitration matters and specialised in Constitutional, Service, Labour and Arbitration matters.
  • He was a standing Counsel for Railway; Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation; Nuclear Power Corporation; State Election Commission; Rajasthan University; all government Electricity Companies of Rajasthan; Jaipur Development Authority; Jaipur Municipal Corporation; Rajasthan Housing Board; GangaNagar Sugar Mills Ltd; Rajasthan Agricultural University.

Judgements and Orders:

  1. The government ordered the restoration of water bodies before 1955:

Implementing the HC order, the state government has issued instructions that since 1955 all allocations made to the catchment area of ​​water bodies in the state will be cancelled and constructions at such places will be demolished.

Additional Advocate General R. before Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari. P. It was stated by Singh to the HC that after submitting a detailed action report, stating that a reference has been made to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of all such allotments. “The decision has been taken and informed by the Revenue Department that no allotment will be made to the catchment area at any cost and they will be restored to their present condition before 1955.” Read the report.

It was also said that the government had constituted a 13-member high-power committee with the chief secretary appointed as its chairman and senior advocate Virendra Dangi and advocate AK Bhargava to oversee the implementation of various orders, besides additional advocate general RP Singh was in the state.

  1. Tejkaran Jatav v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. On 2 November 2015

CORUM: Mr Justice MN Storekeeper

In the case of Toga Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors, the Council learned to dispose of this writ petition with the freedom to represent the defendants in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of Jodhpur, the principal seat of Jodhpur. The decision was taken on 15 October 2013 in DB Civil Writ Petition Petition No. 10799/2012. Advocates may be considered in light of the decision in response to the report. Because of the limited prayer, this writ petition is dealt with freely so that the prayer may be sought for. In the case of representation with a copy of the judgment, the respondents are directed to consider the same in the judgment of the judgment, if it applies to the facts of the case. A speaking order will decide the representation.

  1. When the tax department has the first charge on the property, the sale is invalid under the SARFAESI Act:

GMG Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan and Ors, Rajasthan HC stated that sales made under the Securitization and Reconstruction Provisions of Financial Assets and Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be considered valid at the time of the first charges of the State Sales Tax Department. On the property. The petitioner company, in my instant case, purchased the property auctioned by the bank. After the purchase, the Sales Tax Department sent a notice to the assessee that it was pending sales tax against the original owner of the property. Further, the department claimed that the first charge on the property belongs to the department, and hence, the sale is void.

Before the HC, the petitioning company submitted that section 26E of the amended SARFAESI Act gives priority to the secured lender against all other debts and government liabilities and accordingly, the effect of the first charge becomes nil. The bench observed that Section 26E of the 2002 Act gives priority to secured creditors. “It cannot be legally made to reduce the first charge if Parliament intended to legally abolish the first charge, the language of amendment provided in the Workers Compensation Act Employees’ Provident Fund Act.

Dismissing the petition, Justice M. N. Bhandari stated that “the arrears of the state may be without provision for the first charge and in that case, the secured creditors will have priority over the arrears of the state and accordingly, interpretation of the amended provision is to be given. However, it cannot void the provision of the first charge on the property. The first charge on the property also comes true, according to the Act of 1882. It has already been observed that if the Central Government intended to quash the first charge, the language of the amended provision would have been in the manner indicated by the Apex Court. In the case of State Bank of India. Otherwise, there is a case where the attachment of property in compliance with the first charge of the State Government is much earlier than the amended Act of 2002 and 1933, hence such amendment will not apply even if the property is subsequently auctioned. This is nothing but an auction of the property already attached by the government, after commencing proceedings under the 1956 Act.