JUDGMENT :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. Vide two earlier orders dated 22.01.2026 and 15.02.2026, this Court had issued a slew of directions. Inter alia, the Respondent No.12–company (Respondents No. 13 to 16 being its representatives/associates) was directed to relocate its weighbridge (Dharam Kanta) on or before 06.03.2026 at its own instance, failing which the official respondents were required to take all necessary steps to ensure its removal, their installation being situated within 75 metres of the National Highway. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 10.03.2026 for monitoring compliance of the directions issued by this Court.

2. On 10.03.2026, learned arguing counsel for the petitioner was stated to be unavailable and, at his request, the matter was adjourned to 13.03.2026, i.e., today.

3. On resumed hearing today, at the very outset upon matter being taken up, Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondents No. 12 to 16, upon instructions, submits that the weighbridge in question has already been removed from its erstwhile location. It has now been relocated to a site situated beyond 75 metres from the National Highway. According to him, the directions issued by this Court thus stand duly complied with and he would thus be allowed to run the weighbridge.

3.1 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Respondent No. 12 is a concessionaire of the State and its operations cannot be forestalled. Operating of the weighbridge and responsibility of royalty collection for the Mining Department is carried out under contract for the benefit of the State Exchequer. It is further submitted that Rule 44(18) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 mandates that the location of the weighbridge must be “on route covering maximum transportation or dispatches of mineral in the contract area.”

4. However, he further submits that, both in his capacity as an officer of the Court and as counsel representing Respondents No. 12 to 16, he is unequivocally one with the larger cause of ensuring road safety and protection of human life on highways. At the same time, he vehemently contends that the present public interest litigation has not been instituted with any such bona fide or public spirited intent. Rather, per him, the petition is a motivated exercise of the petitioner, aimed at settling personal scores with the private respondents (his clients). He argues that the petitioner has a direct personal interest in the matter and, therefore, the instant petition though deserves to be dismissed at his instance, but this Court may otherwise continue to examine the larger issues involved.

5. Au contraire, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a vigilant and public-spirited citizen who has approached this Court purely in furtherance of public interest. He asserts that the petition raises issues of grave public importance and that the petitioner has no personal stake whatsoever in the subject matter.

6. He would urge that the bonafide of the petitioner cannot be doubted. Petition espouses the cause of public safety arising from the alleged illegal installation and operation of royalty check posts, Dharamkantas and weighbridges on National Highways, ring roads, service roads and access roads across the State of Rajasthan. Through the instant PIL, the petitioner seeks urgent judicial intervention for the removal, regulation and State-wide audit of such allegedly illegal royalty nakas and weighbridges, fixation of accountability of erring officials, and issuance of uniform safety-oriented guidelines so as to prevent accidents and safeguard public safety across the State. He would submit that the Respondent No. 12 cannot be permitted to operate the weighbridge as it would endanger the public safety on the adjoining highway.

7. Before proceeding to examine the rival contentions in further detail, we deem it appropriate to crystallise the issues that arise for consideration in tod