Jagdamba Construction vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:37518)
2025 Latest Caselaw 9721 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9721 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 August, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jagdamba Construction vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:37518) on 21 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:37518]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15848/2025
Jagdamba Construction, Meghrada Road, Barr, Tehsil Raipur,
Dist. Pali (Raj) Through Its Proprietor Sajjan Singh S/o Bachchan
Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Makad Wali, Deepawas, Dist.
Pali (Raj) Registered Owner Of Vehicles Bearing Registration No.
Rj 22 GB 9638 And RJ 22 GB 9639
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Transport
         Department Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
         (Raj).
2.       The Commissioner, Department Of Transport And Road
         Safety, Jaipur (Raj).
3.       Regional Transport Officer, Pali (Raj).
4.       District Transport Officer, Pali (Raj).
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Sandeep Kumar
                                    Mr. Suresh Khadav
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. S.S. Rathore, AAG
                                    Mr. Sandeep Soni for
                                    Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order 21/08/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered

by the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.9721/2025 : Kanwar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan and Ors. (decided on 28.07.2025). A Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the said writ petition after hearing

the parties disposed of the writ petition with following directions:

[2025:RJ-JD:37518] (2 of 4) [CW-15848/2025]

"11. In the considered opinion of this Court, unless and until the allegation of overloading is established by physically weighing the vehicles, the registration of subject vehicles cannot be suspended. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In case, it is found that there has been an alteration in the make/design of the vehicles, it is the bounden duty of the transport authorities, prior to passing any suspension order, to direct the owner/driver of the vehicles to produce their vehicles for inspection.

12. The case of the respondents is that notices were sent to the petitioners through registered post prior to passing the aforesaid impugned order, however, the petitioners dispute the factum of service of notice upon them. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of all these writ petitions by issuing directions to the petitioners to produce their vehicles before the Transport Department, who will examine and inspect the vehicles' make and design and in case any mechanical alteration is found, a detailed inventory shall be prepared and appropriate orders shall be passed strictly in accordance with law and simultaneously, in case no alteration in the make and design of the vehicles is found, the vehicles shall be released forthwith. The petitioners are directed to produce their vehicles within a period of one month before the respective DTOs who passed the order of suspension of registration of the subject vehicles.

13. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the order of suspension of registration

[2025:RJ-JD:37518] (3 of 4) [CW-15848/2025]

of the vehicles shall be passed by the Transport Department, only after physical verification of the vehicles, including weighing and measurements of such vehicles that too solely in the cases where overloading is found and established upon such verification. The registration of vehicles should not be suspended based merely on the allegations of overloading on the basis of data or information received from the Department of Mines. The respondents are further directed to grant interim permission to the petitioners for the limited purpose of presenting their vehicles before the respective DTOs on a particular day. This interim period shall be valid only for carrying the vehicles to the respective office of DTO for the aforesaid verification/inspection and shall not authorize the vehicles to ply on the road for any other purpose.

14. With the aforesaid observations and directions this batch of writ petitions stands disposed of. Stay applications and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present

writ petition may be decided in the same terms as above.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed

the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, however, not in a

position to refute the fact that issue in the present writ petition is

identical to the one adjudicated in Kanwar Singh (supra).

4. In view of the submission made and in view of the order

passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 28.07.2025 in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 97/2021, the writ petition is

disposed of in the same terms as the said writ petition. The

[2025:RJ-JD:37518] (4 of 4) [CW-15848/2025]

petitioner shall make the vehicle available for physical verification