Road, Ramgarh, Jaipur Rajasthan-Owner Of Truck No v. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Transport

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Transport Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. Regional Transport Officer, Sikar. Regional Transport Officer, Alwar. District Transport Officer, Kotputali District Jaipur. Regional Transport Officer, Bharatpur. Regional Tranport Officer, Ajmer. Regional Transport Officer, Beawar Regional Transport Officer, Kekri Regional Transport Officer, Jhunjhunu.

9. With ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13332/2025

1. Shariph S/o Shamsher, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Mukhya Gram Govadiya Masuda Ajmer Rj- Owner Of Truck No. Rj.36.ga.5101 [2025:RJ-JP:35536] (2 of 7) [CW-13329/2025]

2. Sharapat Ali S/o Shamsher Ali, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Guvadiya Kharwa, Masuda Ajmer Rj- Owner Of Truck No. Rj.27.gb.9648

3. Narayan Singh Rawat S/o Deva Rawat, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 1141, Lahri Kharwa, Beawar Ajmer Rj- Owner Of Truck No. Rj.36.ga.5165 ----Petitioners Versus

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

5. Regional Transport Office, Kekri. Regional Transport Officer, Ajmer. District Transport Officer, Rajsamand. Regional Transport Office, Beawar. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13344/2025

1. Mohd. Juned S/o Mohd. Rustam, Aged About 36 Years, R/o H.no. 101, 55 Feet Road Azzi Colony Ballabgarh Faridabad, Hr-Owner Of Truck No. Hr.38.ab.6186.

2. Ikhlas Khan S/o Abdul Rahim, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 1094 Rubar Mohalla Dhauj Dhoj 17 Faridabad Hr-Owner Of Truck No. Hr.38.ac.2758.

3. Baba Ramdev Mines And Minerals, Through Its Prop. Ashok Kumar, S/o Bhairu Lal, Aged 35 Year R/o 4142 Shree Gopal Nagar Masuda Road, Beawar Ajmer- Rajasthan-Owner Of Truck No. Rj.36.ga.9079

4. Kanheyalal Gurjar S/o Sukhdev, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Deogarh, Masuda, Ajmer, Rajasthan-Owner Of Truck No. Rj.36.ga.9165. ----Petitioners Versus

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

2. Regional Transport Office, Sikar. [2025:RJ-JP:35536] (3 of 7) [CW-13329/2025]

8. Regional Transport Officer, Alwar. District Transport Officer, Kotputali, District Jaipur. Regional Transport Office, Bharatpur. Regional Transport Office, Ajmer. Regional Transport Office, Beawar Regional Transport Office, Kekri. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7404/2025

Shoukat S/o Shri Lallu Kha, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 78, Lodha Ki Dhani, Choup Jaipur, Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Rj-14Gp-9513.

2. Liyakat Ali S/o Shri Dilavar, R/o Kholi Bas, Neemli, Alwar, Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Rj-40Ga-6527.

3. Majid S/o Shri Sarajudeen, R/o Shop No.7, Tijara Road, Neemli Alwar, Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Rj-40Ga-

4. Sadik Construction, Through Its Proprietor Shri Sadik S/o Shri Sattar, Registered Office At Shop No.1 Neemli, Tehsil Tijara, Alwar, Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Rj- 40Ga-5877.

5. Shaheed S/o Shri Mohd Khalil, R/o 605, Nh-2, Sarai, Khatela, Palwal (Haryana), Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Rj-11Gc-7100. ----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 [2025:RJ-JP:35536] (4 of 7) [CW-13329/2025] For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jamasi Ms. Priyanka Paliwal for Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 04/09/2025

1. As the present bunch of petitions revolve around identical issues of facts and law, and the petitions herein are filed seeking 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- [2025:RJ-JP:35536] (5 of 7) [CW-13329/2025] 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 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 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. [2025:RJ-JP:35536] (6 of 7) [CW-13329/2025]

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. 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 petitioners 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 [2025:RJ-JP:35536] (7 of 7) [CW-13329/2025] 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.

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. DEEPAK/10-11, 14 & 72 (SAMEER JAIN),J