Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinayak Transport vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:43309) on 25 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:43309]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18587/2025
1. Vinayak Transport, 24 Ssw Highway Rawatsar, Spd District
Hanumangarh Through Proprietor, Surendra Gusai S/o
Devilal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 24 Ssw Highway
Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Vehicle No. Rj31Gb-
6735, Rj31Gb-7635)
2. Swami Contractor And Supplier, Saharano Ki Dhani, Tehsil
Nohar Spg Fitted Hanumangarh Through Proprietor
Girdhari S/o Devilal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Baramsar,
Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Vehicle No.
Rj49Gb-0335)
3. Nanuram Swami S/o Nemichand Swami, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Bhojasar, Ratangarh, District Churu (Vehicle
No. Rj10-Ga-8908)
4. Parsa Ram S/o Mularam, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Village And Post Bhojsar Bada, Tehsil Sardarshahar
District Churu (Vehicle No. Rj07-Gb-5226)
5. Govind Ram S/o Naththu Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Village Khiyera, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner
(Vehicle Rj07-Gc-7892)
6. Mahendra Kumar S/o Kesra Ram, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Ward No. 09, Jato Ka Mohalla, Kheenera, Tehsil
Loonkaransar District Bikaner (Vehicle No. Rj07-Gc-8236)
7. Ghisa Ram Saran S/o Kesha Ram Saran, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Bhojarasar, Aspalsar Bara, Tehsil Sardarshahar,
District Churu (Vehicle No. Rj31Ga-8616)
8. Mahender Kumar S/o Bhagirath, Aged About 50 Years, R/
o Eta, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Ganganagar (Vehicle No.
Rj31-Gb-5182)
9. Rajpal Singh S/o Sumer Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Ward No. 01, 10 Dwm 4Dwm Rawatsar District
Hanumangarh (Vehicle No. Rj31-Gc-5182)
10. Vinod Kumar S/o Purna Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Ranasar, Panwaran Bhanipura District Churu (Vehicle No.
Rj31-Gb-7291)
11. Ramniwas Ghintala S/o Likhama Ram, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Pabusar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu
(Vehicle No. Rj44-Gb-9297)
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 07:42:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/09/2025 at 10:12:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43309] (2 of 5) [CW-18587/2025]
12. Pawan S/o Ramlal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village
Baramsar, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Vehicle No.
Rj31-Gb-0317)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Transport
Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Mining And Geology, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Regional Transport Officer, Bikaner
4. Regional Transport Officer, Sriganganagar
5. Regional Transport Officer, Hanumangarh
6. Regional Transport Officer, Nagaur
7. Regional Transport Officer, Sujangarh
8. Regional Transport Officer, Churu
9. District Transport Officer, Nohar
10. District Transport Officer, Sujangarh
11. District Transport Officer, Churu
12. District Transport Officer, Ganganagar
13. District Transport Officer, Hanumangarh
14. District Transport Officer, Didwana
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Shekhawat on behalf of
Mr. Vijay Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni
Ms. Sonal Parihar for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
25/09/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
controversy raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 07:42:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43309] (3 of 5) [CW-18587/2025]
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:
"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
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 07:42:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43309] (4 of 5) [CW-18587/2025]
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
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 petitioners 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
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 07:42:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43309] (5 of 5) [CW-18587/2025]
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. 9721/2025, the writ petition is
disposed of in the same terms as in the said writ petition. The
petitioner shall make the vehicle available for physical verification
before the concerned DTO on or before 27.10.2025.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
13-Ashutosh/-
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 07:42:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
