Allowed

Bajrang Bishnoi v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 May 2023CW/7392/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a writ petition by vehicle owners challenging their blacklisting on the Vahan Portal due to alleged overloading. Relying on a prior precedent, the court directed de-blacklisting, implementation of an amnesty scheme, and modification of the portal's nomenclature without affecting renewal statutory rights under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

What did the court decide?

Cars de-classified from blacklisting; prosecution launched against those not opting for Amnesty Scheme; portal nomenclature changed; statutory renewal processes unhindered by blacklisting status.

Bajrang Bishnoi Vs the State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/017977]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7392/2023

¶4

Bajrang Bishnoi S/o Het Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Behind Sonu Monu School, Gali No. 20, Rampura Basti, Lalgarh, Bikaner. Owner Of The Vehicle No. Rj07 Gc 9144 And Rj07 Gc 9244.

¶5

Aatma Ram S/o Hunata Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Ramsara, Arjunsar, Bikaner. Owner Of Vehicle No. Rj07 Gc 7444.

¶6

Hadmana Ram S/o Gordhan Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Jambheshwar Mandir Ke Pass, Rampura Basti, Gali No. 20, Bikaner. Owner Of The Vehicle No. Rj07 Gb 9344 And Rj07 Gc 9244.

¶7

Hetram Bishnoi S/o Gordhan Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Behind Sonu Monu School, Gali No. 20, Rampura Basti, Lalgarh, Bikaner. Owner Of The Vehicle No. Rj07 Gc 7744 And Rj07 Gb 9444.

¶8

Shobit Enterprises, At Chak 18 Bld Ii, Murba No. 15/33, Dantor, Khajuwala, Bikaner Through Its Sole Proprietor Santosh Bishnoi W/o Bajrang Bishnoi, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Gali No. 20, Rampura Basti, Bikaner. Owner Of The Vehicle No. Rj07 Gd 9144, Rj07 Gd 9244, Rj07 Ge 9144, Rj07 Ge 9244, Rj07 Gc 7044 And Rj 13 Gc 4100.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

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

¶12

The Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶13

Director Mines And Geology Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶14

Regional Transport Officer, Bikaner.

¶15

District Transport Officer, Bikaner.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipul Dharnia. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG

(2 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/017977]

[CW-7392/2023]

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶22

Order

¶23

29/05/2023

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1964/2022 (Zabir Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 14.03.2022 , and prays similar order / directions for the present petitioner also.

¶25

The order dated 14.03.2022 reads as follows:-

¶26

“Since, this batch of writ petitions share similar facts and common questions of law, they were heard together and are being decided vide its common order.

¶27

Challenge in the writ petitions is to the action of the respondents whereby, the trucks/transport/loading vehicles belonging to the petitioners, registered with various registering authorities, have been categorized as “blacklisted” on the “Vahan Portal” of the Transport Department for alleged overloading solely on the strength of e-rawanna issued by Mining Department.

¶28

On the joint request and with the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, these writ petitions are disposed of in following terms:

¶29

(i) The respondents shall launch prosecution against those petitioners/ vehicle owners who do not wish to opt for Amnesty Scheme floated by the respondents for compounding the offence of overloading valid upto 31.03.2022 within two weeks thereafter.

¶30

(ii) The vehicle of the petitioners/ vehicle owners shall be de-classified from “blacklisting” immediately.

¶31

(iii) Learned Additional Advocate General undertakes to get nomenclature from “blacklisting” changed to any other appropriate and suitable nomenclature reflecting offence(s) committed by the drivers/vehicle owners, on its “Vahan Portal”.

¶32

(iv) In cases where the allegations of overloading appears to be false on their face in view of some technical glitch, the petitioners/ vehicle owners shall be at liberty to submit a representation for redressal of their grievance(s) within 10 days from today and the learned AAG assures that the same will be considered within a week thereafter vide a reasoned order with its communication to the petitioners/vehicle owners.

¶33

(v) For renewal of permit/fitness certificate/ registration certificate or of transfer of registration certificate, the respondents shall proceed in accordance with the statutory provisions contained under the Motor

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/017977]

[CW-7392/2023]

Vehicles Act, 1988 without being influenced by the fact that their vehicles have been classified as “blacklisted”.

¶38

Learned Additional Advocate General does not oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.

¶39

In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ petition as well as stay petition are also disposed of on the same terms except that the date of Amnesty Scheme shall be read as 30.09.2023.

¶40

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶41

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶42

125-/Jitender//-

Bajrang Bishnoi v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajrang Bishnoi v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Soni Vs Anamika

Devraj Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamal Kumar Derashri Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Khema Ram Vs Bhoma Ram

Shree Ram Engineering and Power Construction Company Vs Dy. Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan