Bypass Road, Bagwada, Jaipur, Rajasthan Registered v. State Of Rajasthan, Transport Department Of Rajasthan

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. Regional Transport Officer, Rto Office Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

5. Regional Transport Officer, Rto Office Alwar, District Alwar (Rajasthan).

6. Regional Transport Officer, Rto Office Dausa, District [2025:RJ-JP:34058] (2 of 7) [CW-12803/2025] Dausa (Rajasthan). With ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12818/2025

1. Aas Mohhammad S/o Sh Mosam Ali, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Vill- Sakras Tehsil Punhana Mewat, Hr- Owner Of Truck No. Hr.74.a.3568

2. Chaman Kumar S/o Sh. Rajendra, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 95/1 Gothara Mohabatabad Pali (13), Pali Faridabad Hr-121004 Owner Of Truck No. Hr.38.aa.3189

3. Mahipal Singh S/o Sh. Uddhan Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Gothra Mohabatabad Pali Pali 13 Faridabad Hr-121004 Owner Of Truck No. Hr.38.ab.9345

4. Majid Transport Co., Through Majid S/o Raseed Aged 30 Year R/o Shop No. 81, Near Dhauj Market, Vill- Zakhopur, Post Office Dhauj, Tehsil/ Distt, Faridabad Hr- 121004 Owner Of Truck No. Hr.38.af.5665

5. Tara Chand S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o H No. 16 Vill- Pakhal, Faridabad Hr- 121004 Owner Of Truck No. Hr.38.ad.4123 ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Transport Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,

5. Jaipur. Regional Transport Office, Sikar. Regional Transport Officer, Alwar. District Transport Officer, Kotputali District Jaipur. Regional Transport Office, Bharatpur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12921/2025

Amjad S/o Shri Ramjan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 86, Khatela Sarai Road, Ahsanpur, Nangla, Palwal, (Haryana), Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Hr-73B- 4624, Hr-73B-5024. [2025:RJ-JP:34058] (3 of 7) [CW-12803/2025]

2. Samrat Carriers, Through Its Proprietor Shri Samrat Tyagi S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Tyagi, Registered Office At B- 492, Left Side, Basement, Green Field Colony, Faridabad, (Haryana), Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Hr-38Ad-0299, Hr-38Aa-8233, Hr-38Af-5199

3. S.k. Traders, Through Its Proprietor Shri Aarif Hussain S/o Shri Taiyyab Hussain, Registered Office At Village Chandeni, Nuh, Mewat, (Haryana), Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Hr-74B-0044.

4. A.k. Traders, Through Its Proprietor Shri Amjad S/o Shri Ramjan Registered Office At 86, Khatela, Sarai Road, Palwal, (Haryana), Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Hr- 73B-5324, Hr-73B-5524, Hr-73B-4824Hr-73B-0024. ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Transport Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,

5. Jaipur. Regional Transport Officer, Bharatpur Regional Transport Office, Sikar Regional Transport Officer, Alwar District Transport Officer, Kotputali District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Jain Mr. Umang Jain Ms. Jamsi Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal with Ms. Priyanka Paliwal : Mr. Jeetendra Takar for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 27/08/2025

1. As the present bunch of petitions revolve around identical issues of facts and law, and the petitions herein are filed seeking [2025:RJ-JP:34058] (4 of 7) [CW-12803/2025] analogous reliefs; and the present petitions are adjudicated by this common judgment which shall be applicable upon all the petitions connected herein on mutatis mutandis basis.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that these petitions are filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek redressal of grievances arising from the arbitrary and unjust actions of the respondents. It is apprised to the Court that the primary issue herein is that the respondents have suspended the Registration Certificates (RCs) of the petitioners' vehicles/trucks, without complying with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and other allied statues. It is further submitted that the said action of the respondents violates not only the procedural requirements of the governing statues, such as issuing notices, providing adequate opportunity for hearing, or ensuring proper service of notices, but also the principles of natural justice. Nevertheless, as a result of the aforementioned, hefty penalties were imposed upon the petitioners for alleged overloading, merely on the basis of third- party evidence, such as reports from the Mining Department, without conducting physical verification.

3. Learned counsel has relied upon the provisions of Sections 53, 113, 114, and 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (primarily), along with the principles of natural justice and the General Clauses Act, 1897 qua mandatory effective service. It is submitted that if notices or orders are not served at the correct and complete addresses, the service is deemed to be defective and incomplete. Additionally, counsel has referred to provisions of the Code of Civil [2025:RJ-JP:34058] (5 of 7) [CW-12803/2025] Procedure (CPC), which mandate granting three-four opportunities for hearing, and has submitted that neither of the aforementioned provisions and procedural mandates were adhered by the respondents herein.

4. In this regard and to substantiate the contentions made insofar learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court passed on 28.07.2025 in SBCWP No.9721/2025 titled as Kanwar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Jeetendra Takar appearing on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. S.S. Naruka has submitted that as per the software and information provided by the Mining Department or other relevant departments, details regarding gross weight and related credentials are taken; based on which the issuance of E-Ravanna and requirements are carried out. It is submitted that an assiduous analysis is conducted by the competent authorities, and after adhering with the due procedure within the prescribed upper limit, appropriate proceedings are initiated.

6. It is further submitted that the principles of natural justice are duly complied with in-toto, including the issuance of show cause notices, provisions of a reasonable notice period, and opportunities for hearing or grant of audience. Regarding service of notices, it is emphasized that the addresses provided in the registration certificate remains valid until amended and communicated to the relevant department. Therefore, the contention regarding defective service of notice is not tenable. [2025:RJ-JP:34058] (6 of 7) [CW-12803/2025] Additionally, it is submitted that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy as available under the Motor Vehicles Act, nevertheless in the petitions at hand, disputed questions of fact are involved and the writ Court ought not to entertain and adjudicate the same. Accordingly, it is prayed that these petitions should be dismissed at the threshold, due to the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy and the statutory conditions being complied with.

7. Having heard the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, taking note of the material available on record in the lead petition, and the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court without going into the arena of disputed questions of facts and merits of the individual petitions, is of a view that the impugned orders (as assailed in the respective petitions), whereby the Registration Certificates of the vehicles owned/possessed by the petitioner are suspended, needs to be set aside, for the reasons that the said vehicles are the source of bread and butter of the petitioners and their families. Howsoever, the aforementioned revocation shall only be effective subject to a condition that the petitioners along with their counsel concerned shall report to/before the notice issuing authorities, on 11.09.2025, preferably in-between 11:00 am to 01:00 pm. Thereafter, due reply be filed within a period of 15 days i.e. by 26.09.2025.

8. Audience with respect to the same will be provided by competent authority on 03.10.2025. Adjudication of the same be carried out thereafter within a period of 15 days. [2025:RJ-JP:34058] (7 of 7) [CW-12803/2025]

9. It is made clear that during the period of consideration of grievances, the RCs of the vehicles owned/possessed by the petitioners, which are suspended, shall be revoked and the status of the vehicle in furtherance to the consequential proceedings as registered and entered upon the official portal concerned, shall be updated, without further ado.

10. It is made clear that no prejudice will be caused to either side on account of passing of the present order.

11. In the light of the same, the petitions are disposed of with aforementioned directions being granted. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed. JKP/65, 70, 74 (SAMEER JAIN),J