Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14854 (RAJ)

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR S/O SRI DHARMPAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/5369/2025 · 2025-05-14

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Mukesh Rajpurohit

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:20385-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5369/2025 Shri Pardeep Kumar S/o Sri Dharmpal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 26, Fatehpuri, Dhakla, Jhajjar, Haryana. Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. Hr-63-D-0660. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To Government, Transport Department, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Commissioner Of Transport, Transport Department, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. District Transport Officer, Kotputli, District Kotputli. 4. Regional Transport Officer, Jaipur-Second, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Khandelwal Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Naruka, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 14/05/2025 1. Heard. 2. The only issue arising for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 28.03.2025. 3. As against the petitioner’s allegation that show cause notice dated 20.03.2025 was not served on him, respondent has come out with an emphatic reply that the same was sent by registered [2025:RJ-JP:20385-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-5369/2025] post and on the WhatsApp message also, the notice was served on the petitioner. It is also stated that even the driver of the petitioner also received copy of the notice. 4. The petitioner himself has filed a copy of the show cause notice without disclosing the source of information where from he obtained it. 5. The issue itself is a disputed question of fact, therefore, cannot be gone into. 6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/Diksha-164