K.K. Construction Company Vs State of Rajasthan — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

K.K. Construction Company Vs State of Rajasthan — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned RC-suspension orders set aside (conditionally): petitioners with counsel to report to notice issuing authorities on 13.10.2025 (11:00 am-01:00 pm); due reply within 15 days; audience on 14.11.2025; adjudication within 15 days thereafter (by 29.11.2025); meanwhile suspended RCs revoked and official portal status updated without further ado; petitions disposed with directions; pending applications disposed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the suspension of the petitioners' vehicle Registration Certificates, allegedly effected without complying with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the principles of natural justice, was arbitrary and liable to be set aside. +2 more

Court's answer

The impugned orders suspending the Registration Certificates of the petitioners' vehicles need to be set aside because the said vehicles are the source of livelihood ('bread and butter') of the petitioners and their families.

Ratio / Principle

The set-aside/revocation is conditional: the petitioners, along with their counsel, must report before the notice issuing authorities on 13.10.2025 (preferably between 11:00 am and 01:00 pm); a due reply is to be filed within 15 days; audience before the competent authority is fixed for 14.11.2025; and adjudication is to be carried out thereafter within 15 days, i.e. by 29.11.2025.

Key takeaways

During the period of consideration of the grievances, the suspended RCs of the petitioners' vehicles shall stand revoked and the status of the vehicles registered on the official portal shall be updated without further ado.ratio¶¶80
This Court declined to enter the arena of disputed questions of facts and the merits of the individual petitions, disposing of the writ petitions with the above directions.ratio¶¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain, 03/10/2025 - Three connected writ petitions (lead: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15144/2025; connected: 15147/2025 and 14439/2025) by truck/vehicle owners and operators against the State of Rajasthan and transport authorities, challenging the suspension of their vehicles' Registration Certificates, alleged to have been imposed on third-party Mining Department reports without physical verification and without compliant notice, hearing or service (Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ss. 53, 113, 114, 194; General Clauses Act, 1897; CPC hearing-opportunity norms; principles of natural justice). Counsel relied on a coordinate-bench judgment dated 28.07.2025 in SBCWP No.9721/2025 (Kanwar Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.). Without entering disputed questions of fact or the merits of individual petitions, and because the vehicles were the petitioners' 'source of bread and butter', the Court directed that the impugned suspension orders be set aside, subject to the petitioners (with counsel) reporting before the notice issuing authorities on 13.10.2025 (preferably 11:00 am-01:00 pm), a due reply within 15 days, audience on 14.11.2025, and adjudication within 15 days thereafter (by 29.11.2025); during the consideration period the suspended RCs stand revoked and the official portal status is to be updated without further ado. Petitions disposed of with directions; pending applications disposed.

[2025:RJ-JP:40099]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15144/2025

Mahesh Kumar S/o Ramanand, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Jitarwalo Ki Dhani, Post Gudhagaurji, District Jhunjhunu (Vehicle No. Rj18-Gc-1046)

Saran Stone Suppliers, Ward No. 4, Jeewan Desar Mehrasar, Chachera, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu Through Proprietor Devkaran Saharan S/o Mewaram, R/o Jeewan Desar, Mehrasar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu (Vehicle No. Rj10-Gb-6295)

Sethi Ram S/o Sahab Ram, R/o Ward No.10, Dhannasar6, Tehsildar Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Vehicle No. Rj31-Gc-4278)

Dayaram S/o Sahab Ram, R/o Ward No. 04, Near Dhani Leghana, Mahelate, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Vehicle No. Rj-31-Gb-0078)

Krishanlal S/o Bhagirath, R/o Ward No. 9, Near Inora Circle, Suratgarh, District Ganganagar (Vehicle No. Rj31Ga-9071)

Raju Ram S/o Nand Ram, R/o Ward No.24, Daniyasar, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Vehicle No. Rj31Gb-0045)

Subhash S/o Sahiram Saharan, R/o Dalman Mehari Rajviyan Sardarshahar, District Churu (Vehicle No. Rj10Gc-6407)

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur

Joint Secretary, Department Of Mining And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

Regional Transport Officer, Sikar

Regional Transport Officer, Hanumangarh

Regional Transport Officer, Nagaur

Regional Transport Officer, Churu

Regional Transport Officer, Sujangarh

Regional Transport Officer, Jaipur

(2 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:40099]

[CW-15144/2025]

District Transport Officer, Churu

District Transport Officer, Hanumangarh

District Transport Officer, Didwana

District Transport Officer, Sujangarh

District Transport Officer, Jhunjhunu

District Transport Officer, Jaipur

----Respondents

Connected with

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15147/2025

Sahid Husain S/o Din Mohmad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Near Hp Petrol Pump Bus Stand, Vill- Hirmatla Nuh, Mewat, Haryana. Owner Of Truck No. Hr.74.b.2917

Manoj Kumar Giri S/o Sohanpal Giri, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 0520 J/5 Kulesra, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar- Uttar Pradesh- Owner Of Truck No. Up.16.ht.7523

Arasad S/o Asu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Tijara Road Neemli, Alwar Teh- Tijara Alwar Rj.- Owner Of Truck No. Rj.40.ga.6361

Ilyas S/o Rahmat, Aged About 51 Years, R/o 132, Neemli Baghora Teh- Tijara Alwar Rj.- Owner Of Truck No. Rj.40.ga.6511

Aarif Khan S/o Ibraheem, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Maliyon Ki Dhani Jama Ramgarh Jaipur Rj.- Owner Of Truck No. Rj.14.gq.8811

----Petitioners

Versus

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

Regional Transport Office, Sikar.

Regional Transport Officer, Alwar.

District Transport Officer, Kotputali District Jaipur.

Regional Transport Office, Bharatpur.

Regional Transport Office, Ajmer.

[2025:RJ-JP:40099]

[CW-15144/2025]

(3 of 6)

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14439/2025

K.k. Construction Company, Kanwarpura, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu Proprietor Kulddep Kumar S/o Gurudayal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Kanwarpura, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Vehicle No. Hr66B5411, Hr66Bh-9111, Rh66B-9211)

----Petitioner

Versus

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

Joint Secretary, Department Of Mining And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

Regional Transport Officer, Sikar.

District Transport Officer, Jhunjhunu .

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Punia, Adv. Ms. Jamasi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG with Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment

03/10/2025

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

[2025:RJ-JP:40099]

[CW-15144/2025]

(4 of 6)

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.

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

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.

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

[2025:RJ-JP:40099]

[CW-15144/2025]

(5 of 6)

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.

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.

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

(6 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:40099]

[CW-15144/2025]

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 13.10.2025 preferably in-between 11:00 am to 01:00 pm. Thereafter, due reply be filed within a period of 15 days.

Audience with respect to the same will be provided by competent authority on 14.11.2025. Adjudication of the same be carried out thereafter within a period of 15 days i.e. 29.11.2025. 8. 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.

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

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

(SAMEER JAIN),J

CHANDAN /15,16,32