Dismissed¶¶24

Shri Pardeep Kumar S/O Sri Dharmpal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 May 2025CW/5369/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Opportunity of hearing / natural justice — service of show cause notice dated 20.03.2025 alleged not served; respondent claimed service by registered post and WhatsApp — disputed question of fact not examinable in writ jurisdiction — writ petition dismissed with liberty to file appeal — vehicle registration HR-63-D-0660 — Rajasthan Transport Department — D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5369/2025 — decided 14/05/2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file appeal. ¶¶24

Shri Pardeep Kumar S/O Sri Dharmpal Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:20385-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5369/2025

¶4

Shri Pardeep Kumar S/o Sri Dharmpal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 26, Fatehpuri, Dhakla, Jhajjar, Haryana. Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Hr-63-D-0660.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

District Transport Officer, Kotputli, District Kotputli.

¶10

Regional Transport Officer, Jaipur-Second, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Satish Kumar Khandelwal Advocate.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.S. Naruka, Additional Advocate General with
	Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore Advocate.

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

¶14

Order

¶15

14/05/2025

¶16

Heard.

¶17

The only issue arising for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 28.03.2025.

¶18

As against the petitioner’s allegation that show cause notice dated 20.03.2025 was not served on him, respondent has come out with an emphatic reply that the same was sent by registered

¶19

[2025:RJ-JP:20385-DB]

¶20

[CW-5369/2025]

¶21

post and on the WhatsApp message also, the notice was served on the petitioner. It is also stated that even the driver of the petitioner also received copy of the notice.

¶22