[2026:RJ-JP:6236-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1211/2025 Prakhar Sharma, S/o Rajendra Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Ward Plot No. 200, Ganga Sagar A, Karni Palace Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302034 Vehicle Owner Of Rj26Sc7009. ----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The Government Ministry Of Road Transport And Highway, Transport Bhavan 1, Sansad Marg, Gokul Nagar Cannaught Place, New Delhi

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Transport Commissioner Cum Secretary, State Transport Authority, Parivahan Bhawan, Sehkar Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 302001

3. Regional Transport Officer, Rto Officer, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Petitioner.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Additional Solicitor General assisted by Ms. Anima Chaturvedi, Advocate.

Mr. Surendra Singh Naruka, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.

Devesh Yadav, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

10/02/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with the following prayer:

“(i) That the impugned gazette notification dated 04/10/2021 to amend Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, Rule no 81, is ultra vires and may kindly be quashed and set aisde with all consequential relief.

(ii) That the Notification Order dated 31/03/2022 Annexure 3 and Annexure 5 may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential relief.

(iii) Issue any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner in light of the above facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Petitioner has challenged ‘Note 2’ appended at Serial No.4 mentioned in Para 3(ii)(a) under the heading ‘Rules’ of the Notification of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 4^th October, 2021 which reads as under:

“Note 2: In case of delay in applying for renewal of certificate of registration, an additional fee of three hundred rupees for delay of every month or part thereof in respect of motor cycles and five hundred rupees for delay of every month or part thereof in respect of other classes of non-

transport vehicles shall be levied.”

3. The petitioner, present in person, submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024 in the matter of ‘Shyam Prakash Meena & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors.’ in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.14258/2024 along with another connected with matters which reads as under:

“1. Since these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common issue of law for consideration, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. For brevity and convenience, wherever necessary, we shall refer to the pleadings and documents placed on record in Shyam Prakash Meena & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14258/2024) and Raja Ram & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6428/2024).\

I. FACTS:

2. In all these petitions, the petitioners, who are transport operators, have assailed constitutional validity and vires of the provisions contained in Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1989’) as amended vide notification dated 04.10.2021 to the extent it seeks to levy “additional fee of fifty rupees for each day of delay after expiry of certificate of fitness”.

The petitioners are transport operators and they are required to keep their vehicles in a condition fit to operate on roads. The State has opened number of fitness testing centres where the vehicles are required to be subjected to test of fitness as per the norms prescribed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) read with the rules framed thereunder. The competent authority certifies fitness of a transpo