Partly allowed

Paras Ram S/O Babu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2026CW/17014/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by vehicle owners against suspension of registration certificates. Court set aside suspension without hearing, subject to mandatory verification of vehicle make and inspection for overloading before road plying. Purposed court directed vehicles to be produced for inspection instead.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside suspension of vehicles is set aside subject to condition that vehicles are produced for inspection. Vehicles cannot ply on road for other purpose.

Paras Ram S/O Babu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:35289]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17014/2026

¶4

CNR: RJHC020831272026 | URN: CW / 35581U / 2026

¶5

1 Paras Ram S/o Babu Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Vill. Sunhara, Kaman, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 05 Gb 8161

¶6

2 Saddam S/o Fajru, R/o Lewra, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 05 Gc 0024

¶7

3 M/s Liyakat Building Material Suppliers, Village Neemli, Tehsil Tijara, Alwar, Rajasthan, Through It's Proprietor Liyakat Ali S/o Dilavar, R/o Kholi Bas, Neemli, Alwar, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 40 Ga 6526

¶8

4 B K Contractor, Delhi-Alwar Road, F.p. Jhirka, Ferozpur Jhirka, Mewat, Haryana, Through It's Proprietor Bholu Khan S/o Usman Khan, R/o 214, Idgah, Agon (104), Mewat, Haryana, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Hr 74 B 9758 And Hr 74 B 9034

¶9

5 M/s Santosh Construction Company, Prop. Santosh Devi, Village Swaroopdisar, Bikaner, Through It's Proprietor Santosh Devi W/o Gopiram Choudhary, R/o 114, Kaswon Ka Mohalla, Saroopdesar, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 07 Ge 2465

¶10

6 Sahoon S/o Mahmoodi Deen, R/o Village Rewasa (168), Nuh, Mewat, Haryana, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Hr 74 B 0568

¶11

7 Tayyab S/o Rehmat, R/o Dorkhi Biwan, Mewat, Haryana, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 05 Gb 3917

¶12

8 Satbeer Singh Tanwar S/o Tekchand Tanwar, R/o 17, Lakki Plastic Factory, Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan, Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj 40 Ga 6334 And Rj 40 Ga 6023

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

3 Commissioner, Transport Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

6 Regional Transport Officer, Rto Office Sikar, District Sikar

[2026:RJ-JP:35289]

[CW-17014/2026]

(2 of 3)

(Rajasthan).

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

¶26

8 District Transport Officer, Dto Office Bhiwadi, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan).

¶27

9 Regional Transport Officer, Rto Office Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

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

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

¶31

Order

¶32

02/09/2026

¶33

Learned counsel for both the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present matter is squarely covered by the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the matters of Kanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

¶34

& Ors.¹ and Mustak & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors .²

¶35

In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the impugned order, whereby the Registration Certificates of the vehicles owned / possessed by the petitioners were suspended, needs to be set aside, for the reasons that the petitioners were not afforded the opportunity of hearing and that the said vehicles are the source of bread and butter of the petitioners and their families.

¶36

However, the aforementioned revocation shall only be effective subject to the condition that the petitioners will produce their vehicles before the Transport Department, who will examine

¶37

1 S.B. C.W.P. No.9721/2025

¶38

2 S.B. C.W.P. No.20073/2025

[2026:RJ-JP:35289]

[CW-17014/2026]

(3 of 3)

and inspect the vehicles’ make and design; and in case any mechanical alteration or overloading is found, a detailed inventory shall be prepared and appropriate orders shall be passed strictly in accordance with law.

¶43

This arrangement shall be valid only for carrying the vehicles to the respective office of DTO for the aforesaid verification/inspection and shall not authorize the vehicles to ply on the road for any other purpose.

¶44

The petitioners, along with their vehicle concerned, shall report to / before the respective DTOs who passed the order of suspension of registration of the subject vehicles, on 15.09.2026, preferably between 11:00 A.M. to 01:00 P.M. Thereafter, due reply shall be filed within a period of 15 days by the petitioners.

¶45

Audience with respect to the same will be provided by the competent authority on 30.09.2026. Adjudication of the same shall be carried out thereafter within a period of 15 days.

¶46

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶47

All other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶48

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

¶49

Deepa-39

Paras Ram S/O Babu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Ram S/O Babu Ram v. 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