[2026:RJ-JP:2028] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 582/2026 1. Mohd Juned S/o Mohd Rustam, Aged About 48 Years, R/o H No. 101, 55 Feet Road Azzi Colony Ballabgarh Faridabad HR. Owner Of Truck No. HR. 38AB.6186 2. Mukesh Kumar S/o Bhiwa Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Sotwara Teh- Nawalgarh Jhunjhunu RJ. Owner Of Truck No. RJ.18.GD.2337. 3. Ibrahim S/o Majid, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Alampur Teh- Ramgarh Alwar RJ. Owner Of Truck No. RJ.02.GB.8301. 4. Samsudeen S/o Rujdar, Aged About 48 Years, R/o H No. 232 Tapakniya Ki Dhani Vill- Nimbahed Teh- Tijara Alwar RJ. Owner Of Truck No. RJ.40.GA.2149. 5. Ankush S/o Krishanpal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Sanwali Distt. Bulandshahr UP. T/ADD. Village Bhajnsrawall Tehsil Ballabagarh Faridabad HR. Owner Of Truck No. HR.38.W.4055. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Transport Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Regional Transport Office, Sikar. 3. Regional Transport Officer, Alwar. 4. District Transport Officer, Kotputali District Jaipur. 5. Regional Transport Office, Bharatpur. 6. Regional Transport Office, Ajmer. 7. Regional Transport Office, Jaipur First. 8. Regional Transport Office, Jaipur Second. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jamasi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore on behalf of Mr. S. S. Naruka, AAG [2026:RJ-JP:2028] (2 of 3) [CW-582/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 16/01/2026 1. Learned counsel for both the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present matter is squarely covered by the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the matters of Kanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.1 and Mustak & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.2 2. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, since there is serious dispute about the service of notice prior to suspension of registration certificates, as the petitioners deny the service, whereas the respondents claim due service of notice. Be that as it may, while keeping the said issue open, with the consent of the parties, the suspensions are set aside, as the said vehicles are the source of bread and butter for the petitioners and their families. 3. However, the aforementioned setting aside/revocation shall only be effective subject to the condition that the petitioners will produce their vehicle before the Transport Department, who will examine and inspect the vehicles’ make and design; and in case any mechanical alteration or overloading is found, a detailed inventory shall be prepared and appropriate orders shall be passed strictly in accordance with law. 4. This arrangement shall be valid only for carrying the vehicles to the respective office of DTO for the aforesaid verification/inspection and shall not authorize the vehicle to ply on the road for any other purpose. 1 S.B. C.W.P. No.9721/2025 2 S.B. C.W.P. No.20073/2025 [2026:RJ-JP:2028] (3 of 3) [CW-582/2026] 5. The petitioners, along with their vehicles concerned, shall report to/ before the respective DTO who passed the order of suspension of registration of the subject vehicles, on 29.01.2026, preferably between 11:00 A.M. to 01:00 P.M. Thereafter, due reply shall be filed within a period of 15 days by the petitioners. 6. Audience with respect to the same will be provided by the competent authority on 13.02.2026. Adjudication of the same shall be carried out thereafter within a period of 15 days. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /25