[2025:RJ-JP:50479]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19688/2025

1. Javed Khan S/o Asru Khan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o

Mannaka Kamal Kha Ka Bass Toolera, Alwar Rajasthan T/add- 3C -111, Ward No.15 Nh-3, Faridabad Hr. Owner

Of Truck No. Hr.38.x.8741.

2. Mohd. Ayub Khan S/o Karim Khan, Aged About 39 Years,

R/o Mukhya Abadi Gram Mundana Meo Bhiwadi Alwar Raj.

Owner Of Truck No. Rj.40.ga.6384.

3. Shri Bajrang Bali Enterprises, Through Prop. Rud Mal

Bajya S/o Natthu Ram Bajya Aged About 42 Year R/o Dhani Chani Ki Home No. 252 Veer Tejaji Nagar Badnagar

Paota Jaipur Raj. Owner Of Truck No. Rj.32.gd.4908.

4. Anuj Enterprise, Through Prop. Naresh Kumar S/o Bhim

Singh Aged About 41 Year R/o Shop, Near Gas Plant Jail Road Dhumaspur Gurgaon Hr. Owner Of Truck No.

Hr.55.as.1082. ----Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Transport

Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,

Jaipur.

2. Regional Transport Office, Sikar.

3. Regional Transport Officer, Alwar.

4. District Transport Officer, Kotputali District Jaipur.

5. Regional Transport Office, Bharatpur.

6. Regional Transport Office, Ajmer.

7. Regional Transport Office, Beawar.

8. Regional Transport Office, Jaipur First.

9. Regional Transport Office, Jaipur Second.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jamsi

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

Mr. S. S. Naruka, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

15/12/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 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 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 third party evidence, such as reports from the Mining Department, without conducting the physical verification.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners has placed reliance on 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 withi