HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 503/2024 Imran Khan S/o Shri Abdul Majid, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ward No 14 Tehsil Chaksu Mohalla Dalalan ,chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secretary, Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur(Raj). 2. Director, Local Self Government Department, Local Self Department Directorate, Jaipur (Raj). 3. District Collector, Jaipur (Raj). 4. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17020/2025 Suo Moto, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, A. Central Government Authorities 1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways (Morth), Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001. 2. National Highways Authority Of India (Nhai) Through The Chairman, G-5 And 6, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075. 3. National Road Safety Board (Nrsb), Through The Chairperson, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi- 110001. 4. State Government Authorities (Rajasthan), 4. State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur- 302005. 5. Principal Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur- 302005. (2 of 8) [CW-503/2024] 6. Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Road Safety), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur- 302005. 7. Rajasthan State Road Safety Council (Rsrsc) Through Its Member Secretary, Transport Department, Jaipur. 8. Chief Engineer (Road Safety And Traffic), Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Pwd Headquarters, Jaipur- 302005. 9. C. Police And Traffic Enforcement Authorities, 9. Director General Of Police (Dgp), Rajasthan Police, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015. 10. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Commissionerate, Police Commissionerate Building, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015. 11. Additional Commissioner Of Police (Traffic), Jaipur, Police Commissionerate, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015. 12. D. Urban And Local Development Authorities, 12. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority (Jda), Jda Campus, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015. 13. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Jaipur Heritage, Chomu House, Jaipur- 302001. 14. Regional Transport Officer (Rto), Jaipur, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur- 302005. District Collector, Jaipur, Collectorate, Bani Park, Jaipur- 302016. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17238/2025 Suo Moto, Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Uzma Ilyas Ms. Aafreen Rizvi Ms. Saziya Khan on behalf of Mr. Syed Saadat Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Ms. Shikha Sharma Ms. Naina Bhaskar (3 of 8) [CW-503/2024] Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 02/04/2026 1. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Advocate General and Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned ASG fairly submit that the broader issue involved herein is covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in Himmat Singh Gehlot vs. State of Rajasthan & Pors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24826/2025), decided on 05.02.2026. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :- “12. In view of the grave road accidents that have occurred and the material placed before this Court demonstrating large-scale encroachments within the Right of Way (ROW) of National Highways across the State of Rajasthan, comprising 103 religious structures, 881 residential structures, and 1,232 commercial structures, as reflected in the list furnished by the respondent National Highways Authority of India and referred to in paragraph 7 herein, this Court, in the interest of public safety and justice, directs that all such encroachments falling within the prohibited ROW shall be removed or suitably relocated within a period of two months from today . 12.1. For the said purpose, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 shall undertake coordinated action, in consultation with and with the assistance of the concerned District Collector and the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police. The (4 of 8) [CW-503/2024] Respondent No. 10 and Respondent No. 11 shall extend necessary technical, logistical, and site-specific assistance to ensure effective compliance of this direction. 12.2. The exercise shall be carried out strictly in accordance with law, after due demarcation, issuance of notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the encroachers. 13. Furthermore, it is directed that the State shall file before this Court a district-wise status report within a period of two months from today, detailing the encroachments identified within the Right of Way (ROW) and the control line of National and State Highways, along with the action taken or proposed for their removal. The said report shall be filed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 after obtaining necessary inputs from Respondent Nos. 10 and 11, in tandem with the district authorities. 13.1. It is also directed that the State shall clarify, in the aforesaid status report within a period of two months from today, whether rules regulating roadside activities and access to Highways under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been framed or are proposed to be framed, in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Rajaseekaran (supra). The status report shall, as far as practicable, be supported by GIS mapping, site demarcation records, and relevant photographic material. 14. The respondents are permitted to seek appropriate legal assistance from Mr. Deepak Chandak, learned (5 of 8) [CW-503/2024] Additional Advocate General, for the purpose of proper understanding and effective implementation of this order, so as to ensure strict compliance with the statutory framework and the Highway safety norms explained herein. 15. In order to operationalise the above directions in a structured, accountable and preventive manner across the State, this Court further directs as under: A. Declaration of Legal Position: • All occupations within the ROW/road land boundary of National and State Highways shall be treated as per se illegal and incapable of regularisation. B. Administrative Supervision and Institutional Mechanism: • Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 along with the respective District Collector and the Commissioner Police/Superintendent of of Police shall bear overall responsibility of execution, and shall, within seven days , constitute a District Highway Safety Task Force comprising officers of the District Administration, Police, NHAI, PWD and concerned local bodies for coordinated demarcation and removal action. • The District Collector shall maintain minutes of all meetings and proceedings undertaken by the Task Force at district level. C. Scientific Demarcation and Identification Process: • Demarcation of the ROW/road land boundary/building line/control line shall be carried out with videography, GPS coordinates and GIS mapping. (6 of 8) [CW-503/2024] • A district-wise Encroachment Register shall be maintained containing photographs, geo-coordinates and particulars of each identified occupation. • Accident-prone and identified blackspot stretches shall be prioritised for immediate demarcation and action. D. Regulatory and Preventive Measures: • No department, authority or local body shall grant or renew any licence, NOC, permission, utility connection or trade approval for any site falling within Highway safety zones without prior clearance from NHAI/PWD, as the case may be. • Existing licences, NOCs or permissions in respect of such sites shall be reviewed within 15 days and kept in abeyance upon detection of violation. • After removal of encroachments, permanent boundary markers and caution boards shall be installed to prevent future occupation. • Police authorities shall provide necessary protection during the removal process and shall take preventive measures to ensure that re-encroachment does not occur on the demarcated Highway safety zones. E. Accountability, Reporting and Future Compliance : • Responsibility of officers for compliance of these directions shall be specifically indicated in the status report to be filed before this Court. • Compliance affidavits shall be filed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 after completion of the exercise. (7 of 8) [CW-503/2024] • The State shall indicate a definite timeline for framing rules under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regulating roadside activities and access control. • Periodic Highway safety audits, in coordination with NHAI/PWD, shall be institutionalised and reflected in the status report.” 2. This Court in Himmat Singh Gehlot (supra) has given further directions vide order dated 13.03.2026 which reads as under:- “26. It is pertinent to note that the Mining Department is legally empowered to permit and regulate check- posts and monitor mineral transportation, including the E-Ravana and transit/royalty pass mechanism, while the installation and operation of weighbridges fall within the jurisdiction of the Legal Metrology Department. These functions are intrinsically interconnected, since the collection of royalty based on the weight of minerals transported from mining leases or quarry areas necessarily requires the use of weighbridges. Denial thereof, would thus result not only in illegal and surreptitious mining but also loss to the State exchequer on account of pilferage in the royalty payments. 27. Aside above, it is also clarified that, insofar as Respondent Nos. 12 to 16 are concerned, they have stated on oath before this Court that their Dharm Kantas have been relocated to a distance of 75 metres away from the National Highway. This position has not been disputed at this stage, either by NHAI or the State (8 of 8) [CW-503/2024] authorities. In view thereof, they are henceforth permitted to continue their business activities as per the sanction accorded to them by the competent authority of the State”. 3. This Court is satisfied with the aforesaid proposition as put forth by the learned Advocate General and the learned ASG and finds that the issue raised in the present case is covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Himmat Singh Gehlot (supra). 4. In view of the above, while disposing of the present writ petitions, in terms of the judgment rendered in Himmat Singh Gehlot (supra) and observing that the directions contained in the said judgment shall form part of the present order and binding upon the respondents, the parties are given liberty to approach this Court again, in case any ancillary issue, pertaining to the controversy raised herein, remains for adjudication. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J AnilS/Sanjay10-12