Parmpura, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan vs State Of Rajasthan, Transport Department Of

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Transport Department Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Secretary.

2. Department Of Mining And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary.

3. Commissioner, Transport Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. District Transport Officer, Dto Office, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

5. Regional Transport Officer, Rto Office Sikar, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Anil Kumar Poonina For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin Singh for Mr. S.S. Naruka JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 31/07/2025

1. Learned counsels for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in this writ petition has already been (2 of 5) [CW-9784/2025] set at rest while deciding batch of writ petitions with the lead case of Kanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9721/2025) on 28.07.2025.

2. This Court while deciding the case of Kanwar Singh (supra) has made following observations and directions, as contained in Para Nos.8 to 13, which reads as under:- “8. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the DTO indicates that the vehicles in question were found to be overloaded for commercial benefits and while treating such overloading to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1988 and Rules of 1989, the impugned orders have been passed by the DTO whereby registration of the subject vehicles has been suspended.

9. As per Section 53 of the Act of 1988, the Registration of a vehicle can be suspended if a contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1988 is duly established and proved. However, in the instant case, the impugned orders have been passed merely on the basis of an assumption that the subject vehicles were found to be overloaded, relying solely on the report received from the Mining Department and without actually measuring the weight of the subject vehicles. The controversy involved in these writ petitions has been dealt with and decided by the Orissa High Court in the case of IRC Natural Resources (Supra) particularly in para 7 and 8 thereof, which read as under:- “7. The un-disputed facts of the case is that the petitioner in its earlier form was issued a show cause notice under Section 53 of “the Act” under Annexure-2 in respect of 14 vehicles for several carrying overload. Despite (3 of 5) [CW-9784/2025] opportunities, the petitioner could not file its show cause. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-3 putting the registration certificates of 14 vehicles under suspension on the ground of overloading was passed.

8. A perusal of show cause notice under Annexure-2 and order of suspension under Annexure-3 show that the R.T.O., Sambalpur (opp. Party No.2) came to a conclusion of overloading on the basis of report received from the Deputy Director Mines, Sambalpur. There is nothing to show that in coming to such a conclusion regarding overloading, any report of authorized officer of Motor Vehicle Department who conducted weighing has been relied upon. Section 114 of “the Act” empowers only the authorized officer of the Motor Vehicle Department to get a goods vehicle or trailer weighed if he has reason to believe that the same is being used in contravention of Section 113 of “the Act”. Thus, there has been violation of mandatory requirement of Section 114 of “the Act”. In such ground, the order under Annexure-3 is liable to be set aside. Though no more is required to be said in the matter, however, for the sake of completeness, this Court is inclined to scan the appellate order. The appellate authority even otherwise has gone wrong in rejecting the appeal merely on the ground that the petitioner had not obeyed the conditions imposed by him though vide order dated 23.10.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No.13317 of 2007, it was directed that the petitioner may not be compelled to abide by the undertakings given by it pursuant to order dated 17.10.2007. In such background, the petitioner was not supposed to abide by the undertakings vis-à-vis the conditions imposed in the order dated 17.10.2007 passed by the Collector-cum-Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Sambalpur (opp. party No.2) in M.V. Appeal No.03 of 2007. This shows that there has been total non-application of mind on the part of opp. party No.2 in rejecting the appeal. Similarly, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that while disposing of an appeal, the appellate authority can impose fine under law.”

10. In the instant case also, the respondent-State has failed to produce any material on record before (4 of 5) [CW-9784/2025] arriving at the conclusion regarding overloading of the subject vehicles. No actual weighing of the vehicles has been conducted and straightaway, it was recorded that the subject vehicles were overloaded.

11. In the considered opinion of this Court, unless and until the allegation of overloading is established by physically weighing the vehicles, the registration of subject vehicles cannot be suspended. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In case, it is found that there has been an alteration in the make/design of the vehicles, it is the bounden duty of the transport authorities, prior to passing any suspension order, to direct owner/driver of the vehicles to produce their vehicles for inspection.

12. The case of the respondents is that notices were sent to the petitioners through registered post prior to passing the aforesaid impugned order, however, the petitioners dispute the factum of service of notice upon them. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of all these writ petitions by issuing directions to the petitioners to produce their vehicles before the Transport Department, who will examine and inspect the vehicles’ make and design and in case any mechanical alteration is found, a detailed inventory shall be prepared and appropriate orders shall be passed strictly in accordance with law and simultaneously, in case no alteration in the make and design of the vehicles is found, the vehicles shall be released forthwith. The petitioners are directed to produce their vehicles within a period of one month before the respective DTOs who passed the order of suspension of registration of the subject vehicles.

13. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the order of suspension of registration of the (5 of 5) [CW-9784/2025] vehicles shall be passed by the Transport Department, only after physical verification of the vehicles, including weighing and measurements of such vehicles that too solely in the cases where overloading is found and established upon such verification. The registration of vehicles should not be suspended based merely on the allegations of overloading on the basis of data or information received from the Department of Mines. The respondents are further directed to grant interim permission to the petitioners for the limited purpose of presenting their vehicles before the respective DTOs on a particular day. This interim period shall be valid only for carrying the vehicles to the respective office of DTO for the aforesaid verification/inspection and shall not authorize the vehicles to ply on the road for any other purpose.”

3. Considering the aforesaid arguments made by learned counsels for the parties and looking to the fact that the controversy involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest in the case of Kanwar Singh (supra), this writ petition stands disposed of in light of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Kanwar Singh (supra).

4. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/274