[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Govind vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13386) on 19 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13386]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4745/2026
1. Govind S/o Ratna Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward
No. 04, Bisarasa, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan
335524. (Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj10Gb2526)
2. Mahendra Kumar Sahran S/o Ramchandar Saharan, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o Chopra Bari, Gangashahar, Bikaner,
Rj 334001.(Owner Of Vehicle Registration No.
Rj07Gd0841)
3. Rafeek Mohd S/o Hakam Ali, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Gali No. 8, Rampura Basti, Lalgarh, Bikaner, Rj 334001.
(Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Rj07Gd3661)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Transport Department Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Secretary.
2. Department Of Mining And Geology, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Joint
Secretary.
3. Commissioner, Transport Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
4. District Transport Officer, Sujangarh, District Churu,
Rajasthan.
5. District Transport Officer, Churu, Rajasthan.
6. District Transport Officer, Didwana Nagaur, Rajasthan.
7. District Transport Officer, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Avtar Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sukhdev Sharma for
Mr. B.L.Bhati, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
19/03/2026
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:41:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13386] (2 of 4) [CW-4745/2026]
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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:
"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
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:41:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13386] (3 of 4) [CW-4745/2026]
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
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.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:41:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13386] (4 of 4) [CW-4745/2026]
3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed
the submission made on behalf of the petitioners, 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 submissions 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
petitioners shall make the vehicle available for physical verification
before the concerned DTO on or before 22.04.2026.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
166-divya/-
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:41:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
