Ravi Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14300)
2026 Latest Caselaw 4648 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 4648 Raj
Judgement Date : 27 March, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ravi Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14300) on 27 March, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:14300]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6789/2026

Ravi Kumar S/o Sh. Hetram, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Dhanak
Mohalla, Ward No. 08, Raisinghnagar, Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                          Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Transport
         Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Parivahan Bhawan,
         Sahkar Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.       Office      Of      Transport          Commissioner,           Through     Its
         Commissioner, Transport Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
         Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
3.       District    Transport           Office,     Enforement        (E-Detection),
         Transport Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Parivahan
         Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Nishit Shah
For Respondent(s)              :     -



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

27/03/2026

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has

prayed for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the Petitioner that this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

I. Quash the E-Challan No. RJ7294015250825110224 dated 23.08.2025 19.08.2025 (Annex.6), E-Challan No. RJ7294015250820054000 E-Challan No. dated 7). (Annex.

RJ7294015250905010287 dated 25.08.2025 (Annex. 8), and E-Challan No. RJ7294015250907123048 dated 29.08.2025 (Annex. 9) AND/OR;

II. Any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, which the Hon'ble Court deems appropriate in the factual matrix of the instant case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:32:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14300] (2 of 4) [CW-6789/2026]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

grievance of the petitioner who holds Driving Licence No. RJ-13A/

DLC/13/35533 and owns a Bolero Maxi Truck is that on

17.08.2025, when his vehicle was passing through Thakri Toll

Gate, the respondent department, through e-detection, observed

that the petitioner's vehicle did not possess a valid fitness

certificate (goods vehicle). Consequently, an e-challan with the

prescribed penalty was generated for violation of Section 56 read

with Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the applicable

Rules.

3. It was further submitted that before the said e-challan could

be served upon the petitioner in conformity with Rule 167A(7) of

the Motor Vehicles Rules which stipulates that challans under sub-

rules (1) and (2) shall be issued in the name of the registered

owner of the vehicle and must be accompanied by a notice of

offence in electronic form (SMS or e-mail) or in physical form the

petitioner was issued subsequent e-challans dated 19.08.2025,

23.08.2025, 25.08.2025, and 29.08.2025, imposing penalties for

plying the vehicle without a valid fitness certificate (goods

vehicle).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had the

petitioner been served with the challan and notice of offence as

contemplated under Rule 167A(7) of the Motor Vehicles Rules in a

timely manner, the default namely, plying the vehicle without a

valid fitness certificate (goods vehicle) would have come to his

notice, enabling him to take corrective steps to obtain a valid

fitness certificate. It is further contended that the delay or failure

in service of the challan and notice, as mandated under Rule

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:32:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14300] (3 of 4) [CW-6789/2026]

167A(7), prior to issuance of the subsequent e-challans dated

19.08.2025, 23.08.2025, 25.08.2025, and 29.08.2025, renders

the said actions illegal, as the petitioner was deprived of the

opportunity to rectify the default.

5. Rule 167A(7) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989

reads as under:

"(7) Challans, under sub-rules (1) and (2), shall be issued in the name of the registered owner of the vehicle and must be accompanied by a notice of offence in electronic form, viz., SMS or e-mail, or in physical form."

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds no

merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that, prior to service of the first e-challan dated

17.08.2025, the petitioner could not have been issued subsequent

challans. In the opinion of this Court, Rule 167A(7) merely

prescribes the mechanism for service of e-challans and notice

upon the defaulter; it does not prohibit the issuance of subsequent

e-challans or the imposition of penalties for a continuing default.

It is the duty of the vehicle owner to ensure that the vehicle is

plied on the road with valid certificates and documents. In case of

non-compliance with statutory and regulatory provisions, the