[2026:RJ-JP:5917]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1566/2026 Trilok Patni, S/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Saakin Kalyanpura, Sunder Nagar, Plot No. 106, Sanganer, Jaipur Temporarily Residing At 91, Ward 04 Pidawa Road Soyat Kala, Shajapur, Mp. Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Mp13-Zx-

2849.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Commissioner Of Transport, Transport Department, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Regional Transport Officer, Jaipur First, Jaipur.

4. District Transport Authority, Jaipur First, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin Sinh Rathore, AAAG Mr. Tanishq Aditya, for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

09/02/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"(i) That the respondents action of suspending the registration certificate of the vehicle of the petitioner may be declared arbitrary and illegal.

(ii) That the respondents may be directed to revoke the suspension of the registration certificate of the vehicles of the petitioners."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is similar to the issue raised in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12839/2024 Harendra Sing Kundu V/s The State of Rajasthan and other connected petitions decided on 21.11.2024.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents also admits this fact.

4. In case of Harendra Sing Kundu (Supra) the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 21.11.2024 has observed as under:-

"3. Learned counsel for the State respondents submits that the petitioners are plying their vehicles, in contravention of the standards prescribed under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) and also in contravention of the Automation Industries Standard (for short, ‘the ASI’) i.e. 052 and 119. Counsel submits that various modifications have been done by the petitioners in their respective vehicles without seeking any approval from the transport authorities. Counsel submits that if the petitioners are allowed to ply these vehicles on road, in contravention of the above provisions, it would affect the life and safety of the public at large, hence, under these circumstances, the interim order passed by this Court be vacated.

4. Per contra, counsel for the petitioners submit that they are ready to do the needful changes, as per the norms of ASI 052 and 119 and under Section 52 of the MV Act and they are ready to submit an undertaking in this regard that they will get the necessary modifications, as per the above standards formed by the respective registration authorities.

5. Keeping in view the statements made by counsel for the petitioners, this Court passes the following order/directions:

(i) the petitioners would submit an undertaking within a period of two weeks from today before the respondents that they will do the needful changes, to meet the ASI standards and as per Section 52 of the MV Act, within a period of two months, as formed by the respective registration/transport authorities.

(ii) Till they get the necessary changes done and the orders are issued by the respective registration/transport department, the petitioners will not ply their vehicles on the road.

(iii) In case, the petitioners get the necessary approval after doing the above necessary modifications in their vehicles and submit the necessary documents with the respondents, the petitioners would be permitted to ply their vehicles.

6. The petitioners are allowed to take their vehicles to the respective registration/transport authorities for the purpose of above necessary modifications but they will not be allowed to ply the vehicles on regular basis. 7. In case, the petitioners fail to carry out the above