Rameshwar Lal S/O Guni Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:44020]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16757/2025

¶4

Rameshwar Lal S/o Guni Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Dumera Bas, Ridi, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gd 4709 And Rj 07 Gc 4552

¶5

Maniram S/o Bhirajram, R/o Narasisar, Sheruna, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gd 7296

¶6

Vinayak Developers, Punjabi Bagh Colony, Plot No. 124, Rid Malsisar Purohiton, Jaipur Road, Tilak Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan Through Proprietor Kailash Choudhary S/o Ram Chandra Choudhary, R/o Plot No. 124, Rid Malsisar Purohiton, Jaipur Road, Tilak Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Ge 1975

¶7

Om Prakash Suthar S/o Gopalram, R/o 61, Near Babu Ji Ka Mandir, Lakhusar, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 49 Ga 1622

¶8

Pooja Construction Company, Prop. Prem Kumar, Gav Scodsar, Sridungargarh, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Through Proprietor Prem Kumar S/o Kana Ram, R/o Teu, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Ge 9828

¶9

M/s Bhagirath Ram Lal, Prop. Bhagirath Mukta Prasad Colony, Opposite Sec. No. 5, Bheem Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Through Proprietor Bhagirath Jat S/o Mohan Ram Jat, R/o Jaton Ka Bas, Bambloo, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Ge 6277 And Rj 07 Gd 6277

¶10

Pushpendra Singh S/o Sajan Singh, R/o B-22, Karni Nagar, Pawanpuri, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Gd 4007

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

Commissioner, Transport Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶16

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

¶17

District Transport Officer, Dto Office Sujangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

¶18

District Transport Officer, Dto Office Didwana, District

(2 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:44020]

[CW-16757/2025]

Didwana-Kuchaman (Rajasthan).

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Regional Transport Officer, Rto Office Jaipur First, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶26

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

¶27

District Transport Officer, Dto Office Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror (Rajasthan).

¶28

District Transport Officer, Dto Office Jhunujhunu, District Jhunujhunu (Rajasthan).

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Rajani Vyas,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore, AAAG on
	behalf of Mr. S.S. Naruka,AAG

¶31

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶32

Order

¶33

03/11/2025

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the instant petition 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 statute. It is further submitted that the said action of the respondents violates not only the procedural requirements of the governing statute, such as issuing notices, providing adequate opportunity for hearing, or ensuring proper service of notices, but also the

[2025:RJ-JP:44020]

[CW-16757/2025]

(3 of 5)

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.

¶39

Learned counsel has relied upon the provisions of Sections 53, 113, 114 & 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 the 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 to by the respondents herein.

¶40

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 SB CWP No.9721/2025 titled as Kanwar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors .

¶41

Per contra , Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore, learned AAAG appears on behalf of Mr. S.S. Naruka, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that as per the software and information provided by the Mining Department and 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

[2025:RJ-JP:44020]

[CW-16757/2025]

(4 of 5)

competent authorities, and after adhering with the due procedure within the prescribed upper limit, appropriate proceedings are initiated.

¶46

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 petition 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 instant petition should be dismissed at the threshold, due to the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy and the statutory conditions being complied with.

¶47

Having heard the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, taking note of the material available on record in the petition, and the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court without going into the arena of disputed questions of facts and merits of the petition, is of a view that the impugned order, 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. However, the aforementioned

[2025:RJ-JP:44020]

[CW-16757/2025]

(5 of 5)

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 13.11.2025, preferably in-between 11:00 am to 01:00 pm. Thereafter, due reply be filed within a period of 15 days.

¶52

Audience with respect to the same will be provided by competent authority on 01.12.2025. Adjudication of the same be carried out thereafter within a period of 15 days.

¶53

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.

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶57

Mohita /156

Rameshwar Lal S/O Guni Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

Rameshwar Lal S/O Guni Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanwar Singh S/O Shri Dana Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kamala Meena W/O Shri Nathu Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Capri Global Capital Ltd. Vs Superintendent of Police

Ganpati Construction Company Vs State of Rajasthan

Shakur Kathat C/O Nathu Kathat Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Azmat Kathat S/O Dula Ji Kathat Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited