[2026:RJ-JP:3118] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 529/2026 1. Mahipal S/o Likha Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward No.1, Chak 23 Dwd Near Govt. School Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Vehicle No. RJ31-GC-0060) 2. Satyam Industries, Dhanasar Kanchi, Chak-6, KDD, Pallu Road, Rawatsar District Hanmangarh Through Proprietor Ravi Prakash Kaswan S/o Shishupal Singh Kaswan R/o Ward No.21, Sanjay Colony, Rawatsar, District Hanuman- garh (Vehicle No. RJ49-GB-2199) 3. Satyam Plaster Trading, Village Baramsar Main Road, Khasara No. 314/13, Pallu Road, Baramsar, District Hanu- mangarh, Through Proprietor Virendra Kumar S/o Ranjeet Singh, R/o Ward No.21, Sanjay Basti, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Vehicle No. RJ31-GC-2199 And RJ13-GD- 2199) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Transport De- partment, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Mining And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Regional Transport Officer, Sikar 4. Regional Transport Officer, Bikaner. 5. Regional Transport Officer, Hanumangarh. 6. Regional Transport Officer, Jaisalmer. 7. Regional Transport Officer, Ganganagar 8. District Transport Officer, Jhunjhunu 9. District Transport Officer, Shriganagar. 10. District Transport Officer, Bikaner. 11. District Transport Officer, Jaisalmer. 12. District Transport Officer, Hanumangarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Naruka, AAG [2026:RJ-JP:3118] (2 of 3) [CW-529/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 23/01/2026 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 services, 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 is 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 vehicles 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 vehicles 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:3118] (3 of 3) [CW-529/2026] 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 vehicle, on 06.02.2026, 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 20.02.2026. 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 Seema/31