[2025:RJ-JP:49921]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19308/2025

Dhanna Ram Gurjar S/o Kesha Ram Gurjar, R/o W.no. 16 Narband Ki Dhani Norana Dist. Sikar, Temp. Kotputli, Rajasthan, Jaipur 332718.

Registered Owner Of Vehicle Registration No.Rj-32-Ge-1026

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Transport Department Of Rajasthan,

Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Secretary.

2. Department Of Mining And Geology, Government Of

Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Joint

Secretary.

3. Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Jaipur

Second.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore with

Mr. Anshuman Singh &

Mr. Tanishq Aditya Parmar for

Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

09/12/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition has been filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek redressal of the grievances arising from 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 Certificate (RC) of the petitioner's vehicle / truck, 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 principles of natural justice. Nevertheless, as a result of the

aforementioned, hefty penalty was imposed upon the petitioner for alleged overloading, merely on the basis of third party evidence, such as reports from the Mining Department, without conducting the physical verification.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 by learned counsel that if notices or orders are not served at the correct and complete addresses, the service is deemed to be defective and incomplete. Additionally, learned counsel has referred to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), 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.

3. In this regard and to substantiate the contentions made insofar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed on 28.07.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9721/2025 (Kanwar Singh & Ors. Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors)

4. Per contra, Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore, associate 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 competent authorities, and after adhering with the due procedure within the prescribed upper limit, appropriate proceedings are initiated.

5. 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 peti