[2025:RJ-JD:3245-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 837/2025 1. Shankar Ram Lawadriya S/o Sh. Ramdev, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Jato Ka Bass Mandawara Tehsil Rinya Badi, District Nagaur. (Rj-21-C-5963) 2. Nena Ram S/o Gordhan Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Maliyo Ki Basti Padu Kalla Teh Merta City, Nagaur (Rj-01- C-2746) 3. Bharat Thalor S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Manglod Rol, District Nagaur (Rj-05-Ua-0327) 4. Bhawar Lal S/o Ramden, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Dotina, District Nagaur. (Rj-21-2R-0160) 5. Sarajudin S/o Nimaba Sya, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Syaniyo Ka Bass Gothada Teh. Degana District Nagaur. (Rj-21-Gc-8805) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport Highways, Transport Bhawan-1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Transport And Road Safety, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. Commissioner Of Transports, Transport Department, Parivahan Bhavan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 4. Regional Transport Officer, Rto Office, Nagaur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kachhawaha For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.S.G. Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG Mr. R.S. Bhati, AGC HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 17/01/2025 We find that even though this Court, vide judgment dated 19.12.2024 in Shyam Prakash Meena & Ors. Vs. Union of India 7 [2025:RJ-JD:3245-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-837/2025] Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14258/2024 and connected petitions], has allowed the writ petitions and declared the note at serial no. 11 A of Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, as amended vide notification dated 04.10.2021, as ultra- vires Section 64 (o) read with Section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as also inoperative in law, petitions are being filed seeking similar relief. Such petitions are not maintainable as the validity of a rule cannot be allowed to be challenged again and again. This petition is misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed as frivolous. However, petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the action of the respondents on such grounds as may be available under the law. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ 10-jayesh/-