Disposed

Rahul S/O Ishrudeen v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Sept 2025CW/14068/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Truck owners challenged suspension of their vehicles' Registration Certificates for alleged overloading based on Mining Department reports, contending violation of the Motor Vehicles Act's procedural requirements and natural justice. The Court set aside the suspensions, directing the authorities to restore RCs, conduct fresh hearings on specified dates, and adjudicate within timelines.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rahul S/O Ishrudeen Vs State of Rajasthan — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:37604]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13352/2025

¶4

Deepak S/o Tejpal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 141 Gm Bad Pali, (13) Faridabad Hr-121004 Owner Of Truck, No.hr.38.af.3311

¶5

Parveen Bhadana S/o Ramchand, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Gm Bad, Pali (13) Faridabad Hr-121004 Owner Of Truck No.hr.38.y.5517

¶6

Jogender Singh S/o Lalaram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o House No. 403, Vill-Gothra Pali (13) Faridabad Hr-121004 Owner Of Truck No. Hr.38.ah.0599

¶7

Ajay Pal S/o Lala Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 403 Gm, Pali Faridabad Hr. 121004 Owner Of Truck No. Hr.38.af.1198

¶8

Mubeen Khan S/o Sammi Khan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Word Number-12 Iti Colony Shona, Gurgaon Hr 122101, Owner Of Truck No. Hr.55.aq.8565

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

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

¶12

Regional Transport Office, Sikar.

¶13

Regional Transport Officer, Alwar.

¶14

District Transport Officer, Kotputali District Jaipur.

¶15

Regional Transport Officer, Bharatpur.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

Connected with

¶18

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14068/2025

¶19

Rahul S/o Ishrudeen, Aged About 27 Years, R/o H. No. 212, Gurgaon Gaoh, Gurugram, Hr- Owner Of Truck No. Hr.55.aa.6471.

¶20

Dhingram S/o Dharam Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Bar Gujar (156), Sikohpur Gurgaon Hr -Owner Of Truck No. Hr.55.ag.0127.

(2 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:37604]

[CW-13352/2025]

Ravinder Kumar S/o Sheel Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Duli Ki Dhani, Tapookra Distt, Alwar Raj. Owner Of Truck No. Rj.40.ga.5205.

¶25

Mukim Khan S/o Isrudin Khan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 59-Samman Ka Bas Nagla Daungar Teh- Kishan Garh Bas Alwar Raj- Owner Of Truck No. Rj.02.gb.7799.

¶26

Tanwar Transport Company, Through Prop. Its Imran S/o Khalil Ahmad, Aged About 41 Year R/o 86, Seoli Road Sarai, Khatela Sarai Palwal Hr. Owner Of Truck No. Hr.73.b.0097

¶27

----Petitioners

¶28

Versus

¶29

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

¶30

Regional Transport Office, Sikar.

¶31

Regional Transport Office, Alwar.

¶32

Regional Transport Officer, Bharatpur.

¶33

District Transport Officer, Kotputli District Jaipur.

¶34

----Respondents

¶35

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14119/2025

¶36

Ayaj Khan S/o Shri Aijaj Khan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Dalel Nagar, Murad Ganj, Ajitmal, Auraiya, (Up), Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Up-13At-0009.

¶37

Abbash S/o Shri Jakariya, R/o 56, Zama Masjid, Tonka (275), Palwal, (Haryana), Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Hr-73B-8327.

¶38

Akhlak S/o Shri Juber Ahmed, R/o Tonka (275), Malai Palwal (Haryana), Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Hr55At-6919.

¶39

Shahid Khan S/o Shri Aas Mohd, R/o Village Gandoori (17), Tehsil Nuh, Mewat, (Haryana), Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Hr-74B-8932.

¶40

Munfed S/o Shri Aas Mohammad, R/o Khalsa Nagar, Badsan Road, Pta, Patiala, (Punjab), Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Pb-11Cb-0332.

(3 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:37604]

[CW-13352/2025]

Munfed S/o Shri Aas Mohd, , R/o Near Masjid Dhana (138), Ferozepur Jhirka, Nuh Mewat, (Haryana), Owner Of Truck Bearing Number Hr-74B-7556.

¶45

----Petitioners

¶46

Versus

¶47

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

¶48

Regional Transport Officer, Bharatpur.

¶49

Regional Transport Office, Jhunjhunu.

¶50

Regional Transport Officer, Alwar

¶51

----Respondents

¶52

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14123/2025

¶53

M/s Mansa Mata Stone Crusher, Through Its Proprietor Ram Singh Gurjar S/o Totaram Gurjar, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Bhomia Mohalla, Malpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj-32-Gd-3071 And Rj-32-Gd-1987.

¶54

Prakarti Buildcom, Through Its Proprietor Anita Yadav W/o Dhouni Lal Yadav, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 32, Abhinav Vihar-A, Gandhi Path West, Lalarpura, Jaipur, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan 302021. Owner Of Vechile Registration No. Rj-52-Ga-7590 And Rj-14-Gk4423

¶55

----Petitioners

¶56

Versus

¶57

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To Government, Transport Department, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶58

Commissioner Of Transport, Transport Department, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶59

Regional Transport Officer, Jaipur First, Jaipur.

¶60

District Transport Authority, Kotputli.

¶61

----Respondents

¶62

[CW-13352/2025]

¶63

[2025:RJ-JP:37604]		(4 of 7) [CW-133
For Petitioner(s)	:	Ms. Jamasi, Adv. Mr. RAj Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Akshit Raj Saini, for Mr. Abhisehk B. Sharama, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Jitendra Kumar Takar, Adv.for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG

¶64

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶65

Judgment

¶66

16/09/2025

¶67

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 thirdparty evidence, such as reports from the Mining Department, without conducting physical verification.

¶68

Learned counsel has relied upon the provisions of Sections 53, 113, 114, and 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, along with

[2025:RJ-JP:37604]

[CW-13352/2025]

(5 of 7)

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.

¶73

In this regard and to substantiate the contentions made insofar learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Coordinate 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. 4. Per contra , the 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.

¶74

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

[2025:RJ-JP:37604]

[CW-13352/2025]

(6 of 7)

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.

¶79

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 24.09.2025 preferably in-between 11:00 am to 01:00 pm. Thereafter, due reply be filed within a period of 15 days.

(7 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:37604]

[CW-13352/2025]

Audience with respect to the same will be provided by competent authority on 24.10.2025. Adjudication of the same be carried out thereafter within a period of 15 days i.e. 10.11.2025.

¶84

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.

¶85

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

¶86

In the light of the same, the petitions are disposed of with aforementioned directions being granted. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶87

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶88

CHANDAN /14,22,25,26

Rahul S/O Ishrudeen v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rahul S/O Ishrudeen v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Chandila S/O Gajraj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Nemi Chand Yadav S/O Shri Babu Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukhveer S/O Dharmpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rinkle Gupta Wife of Nihil Agrawal, Vs State of Rajasthan

The Zonal Chief Engineer (Jaipur Zone) Vs Sh. Dharam Chand Chaudhary

Saroj Yadav W/O Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav Vs Hanuman Son of Late Ramnarayan