[2026:RJ-JP:4120] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1634/2026 1. Pawan S/o Siriya, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village- Mangar Dhoj Faridabad Hr. Owner of Truck No. HR.61.C.3702. 2. Rajesh Bansal, Through Prop Rajesh Bansal S/o Jawhar Lal Bansal Aged About 52 Year R/o Fca-3196 Sgm Nagar Nit- Faridabad Hr. Owner Of Truck No. HR.38.AG.5961. 3. Pawan Kumar S/o Badale Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Bhagwan Nager Colony Pipli, Kurukshetra Hr. Owner Of Truck No. HR.65.A.4757. 4. Imtiyaj Khan S/o Ilyas Khan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 08 Delhi - Akwar Road Sohna Gurgaon Hr. Owner Of Truck No. HR.55.AP.2626. 5. Maduram S/o Haburam, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No. 13 Rabariyon Ke Dhani Pahadila Chirana Jhunjhunun Rajasthan. Owner Of Truck No. RJ.10.GB.4890. ----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. 9. Regional Transport Office, Beawar. 10. Regional Transport Office, Kekari. 11. Regional Transport Office, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For petitioners(s) : Ms. Jamasi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore, AAAG for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 29/01/2026 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 [2026:RJ-JP:4120] (2 of 3) [CW-1634/2026] 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 certificate, 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 his family. 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. 5. The petitioners, along with his vehicles concerned, shall report to/ before the respective DTO who passed the order of suspension of registration of the subject vehicles, on 03.02.2026, 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. 1 S.B. C.W.P. No.9721/2025 2 S.B. C.W.P. No.20073/2025 [2026:RJ-JP:4120] (3 of 3) [CW-1634/2026] 6. Audience with respect to the same will be provided by the competent authority on 18.02.2026. 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 DEEPA/RAHUL-37